Inc., unpubl. data). Most captures have been loggerheads, though green turtles are not
uncommon.

Underwater Explosions: The use of underwater explosives for the removal of abandoned oil
platforms, military activities and oil exploration can injure or kill turtles and may destroy or
degrade habitat. During a 3-year period (1986 to 1988) observers reported one injured or dead
turtle during the removal of 103 offshore oi! structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Of eight turtles
deliberately exposed to underwater explosions at distances varying between 229 m and 915 m
from the detonation site, five were rendered unconscious (Klima er al., 1988).

Offshore Artificial Lighting: The effects of offshore lighted structures on the orientation of
hatchling turtles is not completely understood. These lights may attract hatchlings and interfere
with proper offshore orientation, and may make them more susceptible to predation (deSilva,
1982).

Entanglement: Turtles are affected to an unknown but potentially significant degree by
entanglement in persistent marine debris, including discarded or lost fishing gear (Balazs, 1985).
Loggerhead turtles have been found entangled in a wide variety of materials including steel and
monofilament line, synthetic and natural rope, plastic onion sacks and discarded plastic netting
materials (Balazs, 1985; Plotkin and Amos, 1988). Monofilament line appears to be the
principal source of entanglement for loggerheads in United States waters. Records from Florida
indicate that some entanglement results from netting and monofilament line which has
accumulated on both artificial and natural reefs. These areas are often heavily fished, resulting
in snagging of hooks and discarding of lines. Turtles foraging and/or resting in these areas can
become entangled and drown (FDNR, unpubl. data). The alignment of persistent marine debris
along convergences, rips and driftlines, and the concentration of young sea turtles along these
fronts increases the likelihood of entanglement at this life history stage (Carr, 1987).

Ingestion of Marine Debris: Marine turtles have been found to ingest a wide variety of abiotic
debris items such as plastic bags, raw plastic pellets, plastic and styrofoarn pieces, tar balls and
balloons. Effects of debris ingestion can include direct obstruction of the gut, absorption of
toxic byproducts and reduced absorption of nutrients across the gut wall (Balazs, 1985). Studies
conducted by Lutz (in press) revealed that both loggerhead and green turtles actively ingested
small pieces of latex and plastic sheeting. Physiological data indicated a possible interference
in energy metabolism or gut function, even at low levels of ingestion. Persistence of the
material in the gut lasted from a few days to 4 months (Lutz, in press). Of particular concern
is the co-occurrence of persistent marine debris and the early life history pelagic stages of
loggerhead turtles along convergences. Young turtles are dependent upon these driftlines for
their food supply, and hence the likelihood of debris ingestion is increased (Carr, 1987). While
quantitative data on population effects are undetermined, the impacts of debris ingestion are
considered serious.

Poaching: Illegal directed harvesting of juvenile and adult loggerhead turtles in the waters of
the continental United States and United States Caribbean is uncommon, but no estimates of the

13


2221.

2222.

2223.

2224,

Implement and enforce TED regulations in al! United States waters at
all times.

Regulations requiring shrimp trawlers greater than 25 feet in length to use
TEDs in offshore waters during certain months of the year went into
effect on May 1, 1989. Boats less than 25 feet must either use TEDs or
restrict tow times to 90 minutes. On May 1, 1990, inshore regulations
went into effect. While these regulations are expected to have a positive
impact on survival of the species, certain areas and times of the year have
no TED requirement. To provide the maximum protection to sea turtles,
NMFS should amend the regulations to require TEDs in all waters at all
times, and ensure that all regulations are enforced. Appropriate State
resource agencies should implement State year-round TED regulations for
all State waters from North Carolina to Texas.

Provide technology transfer for installation and use of TEDs.

Some shrimp fishermen refuse to use TEDs and have made no attempt to
learn about them. If improperly installed or adjusted, turtle mortality and
shrimp losses can be expected until nets are properly tuned. NMFS, Sea
Grant and State agencies should assist the industry in technology transfer
for installation and use of TEDs. This service by Federal and State
agencies should aid in the smooth transition to use of this new equipment,
and will ensure adequate protection of turtles.

Maintain the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network.

Most accessible United States beaches in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
are surveyed for stranded sea turtles by volunteer or contract personnel.
Through the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, stranding data are
archived and summarized by the NMFS Miami Laboratory. These data
provide an index of sea turtle mortality, and are thought to be a cost
effective means of evaluating the effectiveness of the TED regulations.
These data also provide basic biological information on sea turtles and are
useful in determining other sources of mortality. NMFS and FWS should
continue systematic stranding surveys of index areas and support and
augment the network. Periodic review of efficacy of surveys should be
conducted.

Continue nesting population study at Little Cumberland and
Cumberland Island, Georgia.

A nesting population study has been underway on these islands since
1964. Because of the long-term nature of the study, and the

34


215.

216.

217.

lighting plans to reduce and eliminate hatchling disorientation and
misorientation.

2146. Prosecute individuals or entities responsible for hatchling
disorientation and misorientation under the Endangered Species Act
or appropriate State laws.

Hatchling disorientation and misorientation from artificial lights can cause
high mortality and be the major source of hatchling mortality on some
nesting beaches if not controlled. Law enforcement efforts should be
focused where lighting ordinances are not being implemented or enforced
on major nesting beaches and where flagrant and repeated violations are
not corrected.

Control vehicular traffic during nesting and hatching season.

Vehicular traffic can clearly destroy nests, kill hatchlings and disturb nesting
turtles. Nest relocation is not an acceptable permanent solution to vehicular
traffic. Driving exists on some Florida and North Carolina beaches, including
national and State parks. NPS, FDNR and NCDNR should evaluate the effect
of vehicular traffic on nesting activities including the need to relocate nests and
develop a plan to phase out beach driving on important local or regional nesting
beaches (except emergency or permitted research vehicles).

Ensure beach nourishment and coastal construction activities are planned to
avoid disruption of nesting and hatching activities.

These activities can cause significant disruption of nesting activities during the
nesting season when viewed cumulatively over the nesting range. Nest relocation
can involve manipulation of large numbers of nests which can result in lowered
hatch success and altered hatchling sex ratios and therefore is not an acceptable
alternative to altering the timing of projects. The COE, FWS and appropriate
State agencies should ensure beach nourishment and other beach construction
activities are not permitted during the nesting season on local or regionally
important nesting beaches.

Ensure law enforcement activities eliminate poaching and harassment.

Poaching, while not a significant cause of nest loss regionally, is occasionally a
local problem. Intentional and unintentional disturbance and harassment of
nesting turtles is, however, an increasing problem on many beaches. FWS should
work closely with FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD and NCDNR to identify problem
areas and focus intensive law enforcement efforts to eliminate poaching and deter
harassment of nesting turtles.

30


226.

227.

228.

2253. Determine and implement appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate
persistent marine debris in the marine environment.

Marine debris may originate from land or sea, primarily through careless
disposal of non-biodegradable refuse. Suspected sources of these
materials are large transport vessels pumping bilges and discarding
garbage, commercial and recreational fishermen, oil and gas platforms,
beachgoers and cruiseliners. To eliminate the problem, the public must
be educated on the long-term consequences of using the oceans as a
garbage dump. Point sources of pollution must be identified and
eliminated by EPA, Coast Guard, State and Federal agencies.
Appropriate agencies should vigorously enforce MARPOL regulations.
NMFS should promulgate regulations governing abandonment of fishing
gear, and impose severe penalties for discarding these materials.

Evaluate mortality from recreational and commercial motor vessels.

The National Academy of Sciences estimates 50 to 500 loggerheads may be killed
annually by boat strikes (Magnuson er al., 1990). Between 1987 and 1989, 6 to
9 percent of stranded sea turtles along the United States Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic had evidence of injuries sustained by boat strikes. While some injuries
may occur post mortem, the prevalence of sea turtles with injuries suggests a
significant problem in some locations. Coastal State resource agencies and
NMFS should evaluate available data and develop better assessment methods to
determine if measures such as speed regulations are needed in specific localities.

Maintain law enforcement efforts to reduce poaching in United States waters.

Illegal directed fishing for sea turtles in United States waters is not believed to
be a major problem. However, incidental take and subsequent consumption of
turtles may be a larger problem than suspected among certain groups of
fishermen. NMFS, FWS, and State resource agencies should increase law
enforcement efforts to arrest and prosecute fishermen possessing sea turtles
illegally.

Centralize administration and coordination of tagging programs.

Sea turtle researchers commonly tag turtles encountered during their research
Projects, and usually maintain independent tagging data bases. The lack of
centralization for administering these tagging data bases often results in confusion
when tagged turtles are recaptured, and delays in reporting of recaptures to the
person originally tagging the turtle. NMFS and FWS should investigate the
possibilities of establishing a centralized tagging data base.

39


Nelson, 1989; Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991). Artificial beachfront lighting from buildings,
streetlights, dune crossovers, vehicles and other types of beachfront lights have been documented
in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling
turtles (McFarlane, 1963; Philibosian, 1976; Mann, 1977; Ehrhart, 1983).

The results of disorientation or misorientation are often fatal. As hatchlings head toward
lights or meander along the beach their exposure to predators and likelihood of desiccation is
greatly increased. Misoriented hatchlings can become entrapped in vegetation or debris, and
many hatchlings are found dead on nearby roadways and in parking lots after being struck by
vehicles. Hatchlings that successfully find the water may be misoriented after entering the surf
zone or while in nearshore waters. Intense artificial lighting can even draw hatchlings back out
of the surf (Daniel and Smith, 1947; Carr and Ogren, 1960). During the period 1989 to 1990,
37,159 misoriented hatchlings were reported to the Florida Department of Natural Resources.
Undoubtedly a Jarge but unquantifiable number of additional misorientation events occurred but
were not documented due to obliteration of observable sign, depredation, entrapment in thick
vegetation, loss in storm drains or obliteration of carcasses by vehicle tires.

The problem of artificial beachfront lighting is not restricted to hatchlings. Raymond (1984a)
indicated that adult loggerhead emergence patterns were correlated with variations in beachfront
lighting in south Brevard County, Florida, and that nesting females avoided areas where
beachfront lights were the most intense. Witherington (1986) noted that loggerheads aborted
nesting attempts at a greater frequency in lighted areas. Problem lights may not be restricted
to those placed directly on or in close proximity to nesting beaches. The background glow
associated with intensive inland lighting, such as that emanating from nearby large metropolitan
areas, may deter nesting females and disorient or misorient hatchlings navigating the nearshore
waters. Cumulatively, along the heavily developed beaches of the southeastern United States,
the negative effects of artificial lights are profound.

Beach Cleaning: Beach cleaning refers to the removal of both abiotic and’ biotic debris from
developed beaches. There are several methods employed including mechanical raking, hand
raking and picking up debris by hand. Mechanical raking can result in heavy machinery
repeatedly traversing nests and potentially compacting sand above nests and also results in tire
tuts along the beach which may hinder or trap emergent hatchlings. Mann (1977) suggested that
mortality within nests may increase when externally applied pressure from beach cleaning
machinery is common on soft beaches with large grain sand. Mechanically pulled rakes and
hand rakes can penetrate the surface and disturb the sealed nest or may actually uncover pre-
emergent hatchlings near the surface of the nest. In some areas collected debris is buried
directly on the beach, and this can lead to excavation and destruction of incubating egg clutches.
Disposal of debris near the dune line or on the high beach can cover incubating egg clutches and
subsequently hinder and entrap emergent hatchlings and may alter natural nest temperatures.
In some areas, mechanical beach cleaning is the sole reason for extensive nest relocation.

Increased Human Presence: Residential and tourist use of developed (and developing) nesting
beaches can result in negative impacts to nesting turtles, incubating egg clutches and hatchlings.


Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in
southeastern Florida. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Marcus, S.J., and C.G. Maley. 1987. Comparison of sand temperatures between a shaded and
unshaded turtle nesting beach in south Florida. (abstract) Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea
Turtle Biology and Conservation, February 1987, Wekiva Springs State Park, Florida.

Margaritoulis, D. 1982. Observations on loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta activity during
three nesting seasons (1977-1979) in Zakynthos, Greece. Biol. Conserv. 24:193-204.

McFarlane, R.W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting.
Copeia 1963:153.

McGehee, M.A. 1979. Factors affecting the hatching success of loggerhead sea turtle eggs
Caretta caretta caretta. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Mendonca, M.T. 1981. Comparative growth rates of wild immature Chelonia mydas and
Caretta caretta in Florida. J. Herpetol. 15:447-451.

Meylan, A.B. 1982. Sea turtle migration--evidence from tag returns. p. 91-100. In
K. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Meylan, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, and B.J. Tumer. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach,
Florida, II. Post-nesting movements of Caretta caretta. Biol. Conserv. 26:79-90.

Morreale, S.J., G.J. Ruiz, J.R. Spotila, and E,A. Standora. 1982. Temperature-dependent sex
determination: current practices threaten conservation of sea turtles. Science 216:1245-
1247.

Mortimer, J.A. 1979. Ascension Island: British jeopardize 45 years of conservation. Mar.
Turtle Newsl. 10:7-8.

Mortimer, J.A. 1982. Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles, p. 45-51. in
K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Mortimer, J.A. 1989. Research needed for management of the beach habitat, p. 236-246. Jn
L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R.
Witham (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226.

Mrosovsky, N. 1988. Pivotal temperature of loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta from northem
and southern nesting beaches. Can. J. Zool. 66:661-669.

49


Fritts, T.H., and M.A. McGehee. 1989. Effects of petroleum on the development and survival
of marine turtle embryos, p.321-322. In L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjomdal, H. Kumpf, R.
Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Western
Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226.

Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia red data book. Part 1. Testudines,
Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 426p.

Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak.
Proc. Zool. Soc. London 130:455-535.

Henwood, T.A. 1987, Movements and seasonal changes in loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta
aggregations in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida (1978-1984). Biol. Conserv. 40:191-
202.

Henwood, T., and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during
commercial shrimp trawling. Fish. Bull. 85:813-817.

Hopkins-Murphy, S.R. 1988. Sea turtle recovery efforts in the southeastern United States, p.
63-71. In proceedings of the Third Southeastern Non-game and Endangered Wildlife
Symposium, August 1987, Athens, Georgia.

Hopkins, S.R., and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in South
Carolina. §.C. Wildl. Mar. Res. Dept. Completion Rep. 97p.

Hopkins, S.R., and J.I. Richardson, eds. 1984, Recovery plan for marine turtles. National
Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C. 355 p.

Hopkins-Murphy, S.R., and T.M. Murphy, Jr. 1988. Status of the loggerhead turtle in South
Carolina, p.35-37. In B.A. Schroeder (comp.), Proceedings of the Eight Annual Workshop
on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214.

Hosier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track effects
on the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environ. Conserv. 8:158-161.

Hughes, G.R. 1975. The marine turtles of Tongaland, VII. Lammergeyer 22:9-18.

Kaufmann, R. 1975. Studies on the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta caretta (Linne) in
Colombia, South America. Herpetologica 31:323-326.

Killingly, J.S., and M. Lutcavage. 1983. Loggerhead turtle movements reconstructed from

180 and 13C profiles from commensal barnacle shells. Estuarine: Coastal Shelf Sci. 16:345-
349.

47


Talbert, O.R., Jr., S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, and J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the
loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia
1980:709-718.

Teas, W.G., and A. Martinez. 1989. 1988 Annual report of the sea turtle stranding and
salvage network, Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. NMFS/SEFC, Miami
Laboratory, Coastal Resources Division Contrib. No. CRD-88/89-19, 47p.

Thompson, N.B. 1983. Abundance of female Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtles) nesting along
the southeast United States coast 1982 nesting season. NMFS Miami, FL., 24p.

Thompson, T.J., and C.R. Shoop. 1984. Southeast turtle survey: Final report to the National
Marine Fisheries Service pelagic surveys. SEFC/NMFS Contract NA 82-GA-Gooo12. 7ip.

Ulrich, G.F. 1978. Incidental catch of loggerhead turtles by South Carolina commercial
fisheries. Unpubl. Report to Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Contract Nos. 03-7-042-35151 and 03-7-
042-35121, 36p.

Van Meter, V.B. 1990. Florida’s sea turtles. Florida Power and Light Co., Miami, FL. 63p.

van Nierop, M.M., and J.C. den Hartog. 1984. A study of the gut contents of five juvenile
loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta (Linnaeus) (Reptilia, Cheloniidae), from the southeastern
part of the north Atlantic Ocean, with emphasis on coelenterate identification. Zool. Meded.
(Leiden) 59(4):35-54.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. VanVleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. Study of the effects of oil
on marine turtles. Final report to Minerals Mgmt. Service MMS Contract No. 14-12-0001-
30063. 181p.

Witham, R., and C.R. Futch. 1977. Early growth and oceanic survival of pen-reared sea
turtles. Herpetologica 33:404-409.

Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling
mortality and their relationship to hatchling production on an important Florida nesting beach.
Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Witherington, B.E. in press. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting.
Herpetologica.

Witherington, B.E., and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward
orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta. Biol. Conserv. 55: 139-149.

Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporal pattern of nocturnal
emergence of loggerhead turtle hatchlings from natural nests. Copeia 1990: 1165-1168.

53


l
‘suopepuswiwooe!|
YORENPeAS 40 syyNEe2 UO]

awepuedep aH yoni s200!

Ls

| { |
| { !
| | {
! 1 !
vonebpiu 20) exewnse onl { zo vet ens
| | i
I { sma | { ‘uononieuco} |
! | ¥NGON ‘999s | ' e0Ue) pues 20) 6jUoU| 1
£6-1 Aq ‘euanoul \ "aNGD ‘uNGS | € | vZ4L 1 -eunbes psepunre dojoreg| ew |
i ! | !
i t i | peaoues| |
| ! WNGON ‘9998 | 1 78 seunaweus jonu00| {
svnneut H “‘uNd® ‘UNG | zt vojsawe peyes euneug| cw |
| I i
| i YNGON ‘9998 | I uoponasucs 126609} |
owpneul H “SNOB "YNOS \ rol Sunenbe: ems) corona! ew 'c-0 |
l |
I 1 ¥NGON 9998 | ! 1
eupnoy| ! tot 1
! | | |
! ! { susie. 1
eunnoy| | e | 29jsuen pues 0: |
{ | 4 i
| | i ‘syoelosd| 1
Srveloxd yueunyspnou| | I jueuysunou yoeeq| ‘
sypeds Aq etu0g oq] i | Yo uoneie60n eansul 1
03 #81800 ‘exswnse on! { zt pue sounp ysiiqeise-oy| ew!
1 1 | {
| ' | |
| | ' 1
l | { 1
| sel zt cul
{ | i {
sefoxd yueurysynou| i} 1 | |
syReds Aq eusog oq] 1 1 Burin yoweq| |
03 #1809 ‘eysuinse On| | e | eenjeno pus yuowojdust| ew!
ION | Ayoud! soquinn| Be) UB] Ar08e189|
Jsquewwo3| 1 xseut |__jexeu0e9|

31NG3HOS NOILVLN3W3IdWI

(OL#AWONg AJBAODBY) BUN, pesyiab607


Carr, A.F., Jr., and L.H. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. The
green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 121:1-48.

Carr, A.F., Jr., and A.B. Meylan. 1980. Evidence of passive migration of green turtle
hatchlings in sargassum. Copeia 1980:366-368.

Coston-Clements, L., and D.E. Hoss. 1983. Synopsis of data on the impact of habitat
alteration on sea turtles around the southeastern United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-
SEFC-117, 57p.

Crouse, D.T. 1982. Incidental capture of sea turtles by United States commercial fisheries.
Unpubl. report to Center for Environmental Education, Washington, DC, 19p.

Crouse, D.T. 1985. Biology and conservation of sea turtles in North Carolina. Unpubl. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Univ. Wisconsin, Madison.

Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage-based population model for
loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423.

Daniel, R.S., and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea-approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead
turtle. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 40:413-420.

Davis, G.E., and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades National
Park, Florida, USA. Herpetologica 33:18-28.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1933. The loggerhead turtles (Carettidae) of Ceylon. Ceylon J. Sci. (B)
18:61-72.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1939. The Tetrapod reptiles of Ceylon. Vol. 1. Testudinates and
crocodilians. Colombo Mus. Nat. Hist. Ser., Colombo, Ceylon, 412p.

desilva, G.S. 1982. The status of sea turtle populations in east Malaysia and the south China
Sea, p. 327-337. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Dickerson, D.D., and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation responses
to light wavelengths and intensities, p.41. In S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H.
Richardson (comp.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation
and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta
(Linnaeus 1758). United States Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(14), 110p.

45


hatchlings reared in styrofoam boxes (Yntema and Mrosovsky, 1980; Morreale et al., 1982;
Standora and Spotila, 1985). Use of these boxes has been discontinued as a standard practice.
Studies have been completed to compare the sex ratios and pivotal temperatures of loggerheads
on natural beaches throughout their range in the United States (Mrosovsky, 1988).

Long-term tagging studies have determined many population attributes for nesting
loggerheads (Richardson, 1982). Research on hatchling orientation and nesting behavior and
how various wavelengths of light affect them is providing needed information to managers
(Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991; Witherington, in press).

The status of loggerheads is being determined by monitoring the various life stages on the
beach to evaluate current and past management practices. This is being done by counting how
many nests are laid, how many of these successfully hatch and the production of hatchlings
reaching the ocean.

The number of nesting females is determined by knowing the rangewide nesting effort and
dividing by the average number of nests a female lays each season (Hopkins and Richardson,
1984). Nests can be counted by both aerial and ground surveys. Estimates of nesting females
were made from rangewide aerial surveys made in 1980 (Powers, 1981), 1982 (Thompson,
1983) and 1983 (Murphy and Hopkins, 1984). Standardized aerial surveys of the South Carolina
coast have been conducted since 1980 (Hopkins-Murphy and Murphy, 1988). Standardized
ground surveys on index beaches are underway throughout the Southeast by the FWS, State
agencies and by private groups and universities. Index beaches include 80 percent of the nesting
in Florida, 75 percent in Georgia and 6) percent in North Carolina. Because of slow growth
rates and subsequent delayed sexual maturity, all monitoring will need to be conducted over a
long period of time to establish population trends for loggerheads.

Conservation Accomplishments - Marine Environment

Managing sea turtles in the water lags behind efforts on the beach due to limited access to
turtles, lack of information on habitat usage by different age classes and cost. Therefore, most
efforts to preserve marine and estuarine habitats are regulatory in nature.

The U.S. Coast Guard has contingency plans for the containment, recovery and minimization
of damage from spillages of oil and hazardous substances, as well as major disasters (J.
Schmidtman, pers. comm.). But trying to prevent bilge pumping, industrial discharges, and
chemical and oil spills in the marine environment is a very difficult problem.

In 1978, NMFS implemented a gear development program which would prevent the
drowning of turtles in shrimp trawls. The first device was large mesh webbing across the mouth
of the net which proved to be ineffective. Subsequently, a cage-like design installed within the
trawl, called a turtle excluder device (TED) was developed. Concurrent with the government’s
action, new designs were built by individual shrimpers. Seven types of TEDs have been
certified for use by NMFS. Lack of widespread use of these devices on a voluntary basis

17


2225.

2226.

2227.

comprehensive tagging and survey protocol which has been employed, it
is the only nesting beach in the United States with adult female
survivorship data. This population is declining largely as a result of the
heavy mortality from nearshore shrimp activities throughout the nesting
season. Because this is the only population with known adult female
survivorship data, these data precede the TED requirements, and
shrimping mortality affects the nesting population directly, it is a unique
opportunity to assess the effectiveness of TED uses directly on a nesting
population with a minimum time lag. FWS and/or NMFS should continue
funding of this project.

Evaluate impacts of Sargassum harvest on hatchlings and implement
appropriate measures to avoid incidental take of hatchlings and
destruction of pelagic habitat.

Sargassum harvest by surface trawling vessels operating off North
Carolina is known to result in the incidental capture of loggerhead
hatchlings. The potential significance of this activity may be great since
hatchlings from nesting beaches all along the east coast are likely
transported in Sargassum by the Gulf Stream, past North Carolina and
across the Atlantic to developmental habitat in the eastern Atlantic. The
extent of the harvest and impacts to hatchlings and their pelagic habitat
need to be fully investigated by NMFS and NCDNR. Appropriate
protective measures should be developed and implemented within 1 year
of the completion of the investigation.

Identify and monitor other fisheries that may be causing significant
mortality.

In addition to shrimp trawls, other types of fishing equipment have been
implicated in the deaths of sea turtles. Of particular concern are bottom
trawling gear, gill nets, driftnets and longlines. NMFS recently conducted
an internal ESA Section 7 consultation on the potential impacts to sea
turtles of all types of fishing equipment in the Southeast, and
recommended that observer coverage be initiated to document take in
several fisheries. This observer coverage should be implemented
immediately by NMFS or appropriate State resource agencies.

Promulgate regulations to reduce fishery related mortality.
If any fisheries are found to result in significant take of sea turtles,

regulations to protect turtles should be published by NMFS and
appropriate State resource agencies.

35


ADNR
CITES
CCAFS
COE
CPA
CZM
DOD
EPA
FDNR
FPL
FWs
GDNR
TUCN
KSC
LDWF
MARPOL
MDW
MMS
NCDNR

NPS
SCCC
SCWMRD
TPW
USAF
USCG
USMC
USN
VMRC

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Alabama Department of Natural Resources

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Canaveral Port Authority

Office of Coastal Zone Management

Department of Defense

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Florida Départment of Natural Resources

Florida Power and Light Company

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

Kennedy Space Center

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks

Minerals Management Service

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service

National Park Service

South Carolina Coastal Council

South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

United States Air Force

United States Coast Guard

United States Marine Corps

United States Navy

Virginia Marine Resources Commission


213.

214.

Hutchinson Island, Jupiter Island, Juno Beach, and Melbourne Beach, Florida,
should strive for a higher rate of hatching success. In all cases the least
manipulative method should be employed to avoid interfering with known or
unknown natural biological processes. Artificial incubation should be avoided.
Where beach hatcheries are necessary, they should be located and constructed to
allow self release and hatch rates approaching 90 percent should be attained.
Nest protection measures should always enable hatchling release the same night
of hatching.

Determine influence of factors such as tidal inundation and foot traffic on
hatching success.

Tidal inundation can diminish hatch success depending on frequency, duration and
developmental stage of embryos. Many nests are relocated due to the perceived
threat from tides. The extent to which eggs can tolerate tidal inundation needs
to be quantified to enable development of guidelines for nest relocation relative
to tidal threats. The effect of foot traffic on hatching success is unknown
although many beaches with significant nesting also have high public use. FWS
should support research and in conjunction with FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD and
NCDNR develop recommendations for nest protection from tidal threat and foot
traffic, if appropriate.

Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females.

Hatchlings orient primarily to the blue-green wavelengths to find the ocean and
consequently many artificial lights disorient or misorient hatchlings, indirectly
leading to high hatchling mortality. Recent studies have demonstrated that
artificial lights also significantly deter nesting activities.

2141. Determine hatchling orientation mechanisms in the marine
environment and assess dispersal patterns from natural (dark) beaches
and beaches with high levels of artificial lighting.

While phototropic orientation is the hatchling sea finding mechanism,
orientation mechanisms in the marine environment need further
clarification. If light is the primary determinant, lighting from coastal
development could be altering hatchling dispersal patterns on some nesting
beaches and lowering survivorship. This could be significant in areas
such as Cape Canaveral where lighting from the Kennedy Space Center,
Canaveral Air Force, Port Canaveral and Cocoa Beach, Florida,
contribute to a significant background glow. The USAF, KSC and Port
Canaveral should support studies to evaluate the impact of lighting on
Cape Canaveral hatchling dispersal and survivorship. Other important

28


level of take exist. During the period 1983 to 1989, the Florida Marine Patrol made three
arrests for illegal possession of whole turtles and 25 arrests for illegal possession of turtle parts
within Florida (figures are not apportioned by species).

Predation: Predation of hatchling and very young turtles is assumed to be significant and
predation of subadult through adult stage turtles is assumed less common, but valid estimates of
mortality due to predation at various life history stages are extremely difficult, if not impossible
to obtain, and have not been determined. Hatchlings entering the surf zone and pelagic stage
hatchlings may be preyed upon by a wide variety of fish species and to a lesser extent, marine
birds. Stancyk (1982) in an extensive literature review reported predators of juvenile and adult
turtles to include at least six species of sharks, killer whales, bass and grouper. Tiger sharks
appear to be the principal predator of subadult and adult turtles. While stranded turtles may
exhibit shark inflicted injuries, caution must be exercised in attributing a cause of death as these
wounds can be inflicted post-mortem.

Diseases and Parasites: There is little information available to assess the comprehensive effects
of disease and/or parasites on wild populations of marine turtles. The vast majority of diseases
and conditions which have been identified or diagnosed in sea turtles are described from captive
stock, either turtles in experimental headstart programs or mariculture facilities (Wolke, 1989).
One notable exception is the identification of the disease spirorchidiasis, resulting from infection
with intravascular trematodes (Wolke ef al., 1982). The observable external characteristics of
this disease, however, are not exhibited in the majority of loggerhead carcasses that strand along
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

Conservation Accomplishments - Nesting Environment

Management to mitigate the effects of naturally occurring events such as erosion and
vegetation, and a variety of man-induced factors mentioned in the previous section, usually
consists of relocating nests to higher sites on the dune, or into a hatchery. This was once a
common practice throughout the southeast region. More recently the emphasis of management
is to be far less manipulative with the nests and hatchlings. Table | contains a listing of most
of the major Federal, State and private nest survey and protection projects along the southeast
coast.

Acquisition of high density nesting beaches between Melbourne Beach and Wabasso Beach,
Florida, is underway to establish the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately
25 percent of the loggerhead nesting in the United States occurs along this 33 km stretch of
beach. The State of Florida purchased the first parcel specifically for the refuge in July 1990.
Federal acquisition began in 1991. When completed the refuge will protect up to 16 km of
nesting beach. As of September 1991 the 860-acre refuge is approximately 25 percent complete
due in large part to previous County and State purchases under the State of Florida’s Save Our
Coast Program.

14


Private conservation organizations such as the Center for Marine Conservation, Greenpeace
and National Audubon Society and Federal and State agencies have produced and distributed a
variety of audio-visual aids and printed materials about sea turtles. These include: the brochure
“Attention Beach Users", a booklet (Raymiond, 1984b) on the various types of light fixtures and
ways of screening lights to lessen their effects on hatchlings, "Lights Out" bumper stickers and
decals, a coloring book, video tapes, slide/tape programs, full color identification posters of the
eight species of sea turtles, and a hawksbill poster. Florida Power and Light Company also has
produced a booklet (Van Meter, 1990) with general information on sea turtles.

Recent reviews of sea turtle conservation efforts in the southeastern United States appear in
Hopkins-Murphy (1988) and Possardt (1991).

20


Perhaps the most frustrating habitat protection effort is trying to minimize or eliminate the
construction of seawalls, rip-rap, groins, sand bags and improperly placed drift or sand fences.
State and Federal laws designed to protect the beach and dune habitat include: Coastal Barrier
Resources Act of 1982 (Federal), Coastal Areas Management Act of 1974 (North Carolina),
Beachfront Management Act of 1990 (South Carolina), Shore Assistance Act of 1979 (Georgia)
and Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 (Florida). These have had varying degrees of success
at maintaining suitable nesting sites for loggerheads. The Governor and Cabinet of the State of
Florida approved a Beach Armoring Policy on December 18, 1990. This policy prohibits
armoring along a 32 km stretch of high density nesting beach between Melbourne Beach and
Wabasso Beach and restricts armoring elsewhere to structures threatened by a 5-year retum
interval storm event.

Beach nourishment is a better alternative for sea turtles than seawalls and jetties. When
beach nourishment was done mostly in the summer, all nests had to be moved from the beach
prior to nourishment. Now FWS and State natural resource agencies review beach nourishment
Projects to ensure appropriate timing of nourishment during the nesting and hatching season.
Beaches where compaction after nourishment is a problem are plowed to a depth of 92 cm to
soften the sand so that it is useable for nesting turtles (Nelson and Dickerson, 1987). Progress
is being made toward better timing of projects and sand quality.

Progress is also being made by many states, counties and towns to prevent disorientation and
misorientation of hatchlings (Ernest er al., 1987; Shoup and Wolf, 1987). In Florida, lighting
ordinances have been passed by the following counties: Nassau, Flagler, Volusia, Brevard,
Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Collier, Charlotte, Sarasota and Lee.
Over 20 towns or cities have also passed ordinances on Florida's east coast. Georgetown
County passed the first lighting ordinance in South Carolina. Under the new South Carolina
Beachfront Management Act of 1990, guidelines were approved which will require all coastal
communities to have lighting ordinances. The USAF has developed and is implementing lighting
plans for launch complexes and other facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

The most longstanding beach management program has been to reduce destruction of nests
by natural predators, such as raccoons and feral predators, such as hogs. Between 6 and 8
percent of loggerhead nesting occurs on National Wildlife Refuges along the southeastern coast.
Several refuges have ongoing predator control programs (See Table 1).

Because of more attention to the status of sea turtles, human take is not the problem it once
was on United States beaches, although this is still a major problem in other countries. The
isolated cases of nest poaching receive immediate attention from FWS law enforcement and State
conservation officers. Loss of eggs to human poaching does not represent the high mortality
factor it once did.

In addition to implementing management on nesting beaches, there has been extensive

research into the effects of this management on sea turtle populations. Specifically, the most
important aspect in recent years is the effect of incubation temperature on the sex ratio of

16


2142.

2143.

2144,

2145.

nesting beaches which may be influenced by coastal lighting should be
evaluated by appropriate State resource agencies and coastal communities.

Implement and enforce lighting ordinances.

Where lighting ordinances have been adopted and enforced such as
Brevard County, Florida, hatchling disorientation and misorientation have
been drastically reduced. All coastal counties and communities with
nesting beaches should adopt ordinances May through October. Many
incorporated communities within Broward and Palm Beach Counties,
Florida, are particularly problematic because of the high density nesting
beaches and the lack of effective lighting regulations.

Evaluate extent of hatchling disorientation and misorientation on all
important regional nesting beaches.

FWS, appropriate State resource agencies, and counties should evaluate
hatchling disorientation and misorientation problems on all important
regional nesting beaches. Many lighting ordinance requirements do not
become effective until 11 p.m., whereas over 30 percent of hatchling
emergence occurs prior to this time (Witherington et al., 1990). FWS,
State resource agencies, ard county governments should also support
research to gather additional quantitative data on hatchling emergence
times and nesting times on representative beaches throughout the Southeast
to support the most effective time requirements for lighting ordinances.

Evaluate need for Federal lighting regulations.

Where local lighting ordinances have not been implemented or are
ineffective, Federal regulations should be promulgated under authority of
the Endangered Species Act for important nesting beaches.

Develop lighting plans at Port Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center,
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Base,
Florida.

Cape Canaveral is one of the four most important nesting beaches in the
United States with over 10 percent of all nesting activity. Launch and
support facilities at Canaveral and lighting at Patrick AFB are responsible
for hatchling disorientation and misorientation on Merritt Island National
Wildlife Refuge and Air Force beaches. Lights from the KSC, USAF
facilities and Port Canaveral may be altering natural hatchling dispersal
from Cape Canaveral. The KSC, USAF and the Port should develop

29


Trawl Fisheries: Of all commercial and recreational fisheries conducted in the United States,
shrimp trawling is the most damaging to the recovery of marine turtles. The estimated number
of loggerheads killed annually by the offshore shrimping fleet in the southeastern United States
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is 5,000 to 50,000 (Magnuson et al., 1990). Incidental capture and
drowning in shrimp trawls is believed to be the largest single source of mortality on juvenile
through adult stage marine turtles in the southeastern United States. Most of these turtles are
juveniles and subadults, the age and size classes most critical to the stability and recovery of
marine turtle populations (Crouse et al., 1987). Quantitative estimates of turtle take by shrimp
trawlers in inshore waters have not been developed, but the level of trawling effort expended
in inshore waters along with increasing documentation of the utilization of inshore habitat by
loggerhead turtles suggest that capture and mortality may be significant. Trawlers targeting
species other than shrimp tend to use larger nets than shrimp trawlers and probably also take sea
turtles, although capture levels have not been developed. These fisheries include, but are not
limited to bluefish, croaker, flounder, calico scallops, blue crab and whelk. Of these, the
bluefish, croaker and flounder trawl fisheries likely pose the most serious threats (T. Henwood,
pers. comm.). The harvest of Sargassum by trawlers can result in incidental capture of post-
hatchlings and habitat destruction (Schwartz, 1988).

Purse Seine Fisheries: Several purse seine fisheries operate in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic,
including those targeting menhaden and sardines. Turtles may be taken in these fisheries, but
the level of take and percent mortality is currently unquantified.

Hook and Line Fisheries: Several thousand commercial vessels are engaged in hook and line
fisheries which target various species including coastal species, reef fish and pelagic species.
In addition to commercial take, the recreational fishery is extensive. Turtle captures on hook
and line gear are not uncommon, but the level of take and percent mortality are unknown. It
is assumed that most turtles are released alive, although ingested hooks and entanglement in
associated monofilament/steel line have been documented as the probable cause of death in some
stranded turtles.

Gill Net Fisheries: Gill nets are utilized both in inshore and offshore areas for various species
and may be stationary or drifting. Mesh size is dependent on the size of the fish which are
targeted but the gear is considered non-selective in the species impacted (T. Henwood, pers.
comm.). Trammel nets are modified gill nets set in panels of webbing of variable mesh size.
Marine turtles are vulnerable to entanglement and drowning in gill and trammel nets, especially
when this gear is left unattended. Turtle mortality resulting from the use of gill nets set for
sturgeon in South Carolina and North Carolina have been documented (Ulrich, 1978; Crouse,
1982). In response to a reduced sturgeon population, the State of South Carolina has prohibited
gill netting for sturgeon since 1986. Of particular concern are the gill net and trammel net
fisheries off the Florida east-central coast. These fisheries, primarily targeting king rnackerel,
pompano and shark have undergone recent expansion in the number of vessels and level of
fishing effort (Schaefer er al., 1987). Stranding patterns of turtles in this area indicate that
significant numbers of turtles may be killed incidental to these fisheries.

11


Tl. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priorities in Column 4 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows:

Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from
declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species

population/habitat quality or some other significant negative impact short of
extinction.

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.

55


convergences (Carr, 1986a, 1986b; 1987). The evidence suggests that when post-hatchlings
become a part of the Sargassum raft community they remain there as juveniles, riding current
gyres for several years and growing to 40 to 50cm sCL. At that point they abandon the pelagic
habitat, migrate to the near-shore and estuarine waters along continental margins and utilize
those areas as the developmental habitat for the subadult stage. In most nearshore waters in the
Southeast, adults and subadults appear to use the same habitat. In some of the inshore waters
such as the Indian River Lagoon of east Florida the subadults are virtually isolated from the
adults, whose foraging areas outside of the nesting season are apparently in the Bahamas, the
Antilles or the Gulf of Mexico. Habitat selection is not well understood but it seems clear that
adults can utilize a variety of habitats. Remote recoveries of females tagged in Florida indicate
that many migrate to the Gulf of Mexico, often to the turbid, detritus-laden, muddy-bottom bays
and bayous of the northern Gulf Coast. Still others apparently occupy the clear waters of the
Bahamas and Antilles, with sandy bottoms, reefs and shoals that constitute a totally different
type of habitat. Nothing is known of the relative periods of time that loggerheads may spend
in these disparate habitats or of their propensity to move from one to another.

Diet: While the list of food items eaten by loggerheads is lengthy and includes invertebrates
from eight phyla (Dodd, 1988), it is clear that subadult and adult loggerheads are, first and
foremost, predators of benthic invertebrates such as gastropod and pelecypod molluscs and
decapod crustaceans. Coelenterates and cephalopod molluscs are also taken by larger turtles but
these invertebrates are especially favored by loggerheads in the pelagic stage. Most of the
evidence for the latter statement comes from the island groups of the eastern Atlantic (van
Nierop and den Hartog, 1984). Post-hatchling loggerheads evidently ingest macroplankton
associated with “weed lines." In one of the few studies of post-hatchling food habits in the
southeastern United States, Carr and Meylan (1980) found two species of small gastropods
characteristic of the Sargassum raft community as well as fragments of crustaceans and the
Sargassum plant itself. Although Brongersma (1972) listed Syngnathid fishes among loggerhead
food items, this species is not a fish eater in any primary sense. Loggerheads may scavenge fish
or fish parts or ingest fish incidentally in some circumstances.

Growth: While a number of workers have reported growth rates of post-hatchling and
juvenile loggerheads in captivity (e.g., Witham and Futch, 1977), such information is totally
lacking for these stages in the wild. In captivity young loggerheads can grow to about 63 cm
CL and 37 kg in mass in 4.5 years (Parker, 1926). In wild subadults, Limpus (1979) has
reported linear growth rates of 1.5 cm/yr in Australia and Mendonca (1981) has reported
average linear growth rates of 5.9 cm/yr in Florida. It seems clear now that growth rates of
subadults decrease with increasing carapace length (i.e. growth is not linear). Although they
lacked data for loggerheads smaller than 53 cm sCL, Frazer and Ehrhart (1985) fitted growth
data for Florida subadults to both logistic and van Bertalanffy curves and estimated age at
maturity as 12 to 30 years.

Reproduction: It has been assumed for some time that, males migrate with females from
distant foraging areas to the waters off nesting beaches and that courtship and mating take place
there. The few reports concerning the seasonality of mating clearly place it in the late March-


121. Identify important habitat.

122.

123.

124,

Loggerheads are opportunistic foragers occurring throughout the warm waters of
the continental shelf. They frequently feed around coral reefs, rocky places, and
old boat wrecks, and often enter bays, lagoons and estuaries. Little information
on habitat preference of specific age/size/sex classes is available. To effectively
protect the species, NMFS should consider habitat research to be of high priority.

Prevent degradation and improve water quality of important turtle habitat.

Coastal development and associated changes in land utilization have led to severe
degradation of habitat through contamination and/or loss of food sources in
estuarine and marine waters. Declines in water quality resulting from industrial
pollution, channel dredging and maintenance, harbor activities, farm runoff and
sewage disposal, have rendered large water bodies marginally habitable. The
EPA and State environmental regulatory agencies must ensure that established
minimum water quality standards are enforced. Land utilization decisions and
associated construction projects should be carefully considered by local
governments, states, CZM, NMFS, FWS, EPA, COE, and other regulatory and
permitting agencies.

Prevent destruction of habitat from fishing gears and vessel anchoring.

Bottom tending fishing gears can be destructive to a wide variety of habitats.
Coral reefs are particularly vulnerable to destruction from roller rig trawling gear
because corals may be crushed by the weight of rollers and trawls. Seagrass,
sponge and other live bottom habitats can also be scoured by trawling gear.
Anchoring vessels in sensitive habitats may also be destructive. NMFS should
evaluate the potential loss of habitat from these activities and take appropriate
actions to ensure long-term protection of reefs and other important habitats.

Prevent destruction of marine habitat from oil and gas activities.

Oil and gas activities may negatively impact sea turtle habitat during exploration,
development, production and abandonment phases. Of particular concern are
impacts of oil spills, drilling mud disposal, disposal of other toxic materials,
pipeline networks associated with oil and gas fields, onshore production facilities,
increased vessel traffic, domestic garbage disposal and explosive removal of
obsolete platforms. MMS, COE, and the oil and gas industry should take
appropriate actions to ensure that known sources of pollution and toxic waste
disposal are eliminated. Additional precautions are needed to prevent oil spilis.
A response team to deal with spills should be established.

26


r6s)

! 1 | J Anenpuy | | ! |
s1800 405| | | | I ! i
eiqisuodees Anenpuy| t ! 1 ! ! !
Pus SIN ‘e1euee On| { H 1 Suynupuos | zl bpezt
| | | ! ! t
L1ZZ Ut soxeunse| ' I | ! | '
Uy pepryur i809] | | i I | I senso] BuiBpesp 28]
181809 20) @;qjsuodee.| | | { 1 | | sepum jo eouspunge pus|
309 ‘erswnee on! | | 1 Gununucs | Z 1 eezz 1 —Atueuosves ourwoieg|
| i | i t | I
| i | if ! | { sound
900 40) oqisucdses| 1 1 I 1 | | enum eonpos 0: sooine,
305 ‘eletunse o; ' § { i 1 i a spesytesp ships:
i 1 i Suynunuos | Z | ZezT | 40 suonsoyspow srenjeng
TYyBIE20A0 40} SIN Pur! 1 ! i i 1 | |
83800 10) efqisuodses| { | I ‘SAWN | ' i 1 seBpoup uo}
30D ‘eyewnse on| | | | 309 | Bununuoo | ZL tezz | Aijerzow epany soyuow |
| | | i I i | )
I | i if 1 { 1 1 I
| | | ! soroucBe | i 1 1 Ayyeys0us |
1 1 | | eoinoee! eins | 1 1 1 perejos Asoysyy eonpei}
eunnoy| i | | SdWN | Bununucd | Z 1 L771 04 suoHe;nBes eyeBjnwo.g}
| | | i | 1 I i
| | 1 i | i I |
| | | ! seroucbe | 1 I |
| | | i eounoses 93815 | ! i |
| oz 1 oz! ozt ‘SdWN H s190A G-y | zl Z| sepeYsYy yo owen!
| 1
Pot 1° “ semanous swpdosde|
| i I i | | ' | quewesdusy puw sBuyyorey!
| ! I i UNGON | i | | uo ywensy wnssetves|
i fol ot SAWN | su80A ¢-7 | zt sei 30 syoedust eyenjeng |
| t t | ' 1 ! !
i ( ! | ' 1 i !
| ! I 1 smd | 1 1 |
1 Ze }oal wi SdN | Buinunuos | e | veel
{ 1 | 1 I 1 I |
I 1 1 1 serousBe | 1 1 !
| | ! { eounose. | 1 { i
| 1 1 | 818g e16809 | 1 1 | sHomieu Buipuens|
I | { l SM 'SJWN | Suinunuos | zt evel Suny ves ureIUEW |
eon | GAs] vAd! CAs! ZAdI quewn9| Aoueby| uoneing! Aword| sequin! weeL uel] AsoBe1e5|
Jeuewuos | 0004 #1805 180, Jeosty porewnez — | e1q1suodsoy| yee} | ase! | jes0ue9}

(OL#AWION, AJBAODaY) 9/1IN] peeysa660q



i { ! ! ‘ i squsii89i65} t
eunnoy| t | zl dt Iuonewesur dojeneg! 8-0 ‘Z-W |
| | t | i 1 '
I ! ' { i i i
| | | ! ! seypeeg Buncou| 1
| ! t | ! | queyoduiy vo suBle jeuon| |
eunnoy | | 1 1 € | G€ | -suwojuyjeuonsonpe rsod| ¢-W ‘1-0 |
1 | | | | | '
1 | i { 1 |
eupnoy| | | ! e! ge ‘rol
1 1 1 I | i
t I | | | |
t 1 ! | t t sAe{dsip jeuoneonpe| |
i i i i I | soja Agideip| |
eupnoy| 1 | | € 1 ve | sentosy penywued esnsu3} 1
| { | | i ! i |
| | i i | | ! |
| ot { ‘SMd i ' | weigosd BunyBiy| |
| oO l ' NG woA t | c H ec | Woynse uo ysd dojaeg! ¢-W ‘vel
7 1 1
i | ! | | i suoneoyipous| 1
| i | ‘S4WN | ! [| Buny6y pepuewu0ses} |
ounnoul H H SMA awod 1 | el ze | ue einyooig dojenag) £-W ‘Lt I
{ !
| ! | seouce | | I
{ 1 | eoinosss eres i 1 |
| | | ‘'S4WN ! ! |
eunnoy | H | | SMa | Guinunuos | el te H
{ I
1 ' ' SMa I i !
eupnoy| i 1 SAWN | Suinunuoo | © | vezt
| | 1 1 1 ! {
| i i 1 | ! !
eupnoy| 1 1 SM 1 { 1 sopun soe eandes| 1
! t | SAWN | Buynunuos | © 1 C62Z 1 ye 205 Boywiwo yorquie3| cw |
I | | | { i
1 I i} SM4 i} i} if ‘essonip jo ueuneess| '
1 | | SAWN se0h 1 | e | zezzi ew dojeneg|9-W ‘Lt-u |
1 ! t 1 1 ! t
1 { I | iF { |
! | ' ‘SM4 | | |
t Il | ‘SJWN seed g | el tezzt
son | GAa!] vA! CAS! ZAdI queuing] AoueBy| voneung) Awoug| sequin! yee, uel! AsoBeie5|
Ieyueusw0 | O00$ #1805 see, jeosly poxswNEZ | eiqisuodsoy | x01] Leen! [__ jes0ue9|

(DLHAWIONY AsVAODaY) B[UIN] Peaysa6607
3ING3HOS NOLLVLNIWA Td


buried bags are hard and exacerbate erosion when uncovered by storm events and
prevent nesting when uncovered or buried too close to the sand surface.

1121. Evaluate current laws on beach armoring and strengthen if necessary.

State regulations prohibiting or discouraging some forms of beach
armoring now exist in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North
Carolina. FDNR, GDNR, SCCC, and NCDNR should review current
State regulations related to beach construction and ensure seawalls,
revetments, sandbags and other armoring measures contributing to the
degradation of nesting habitat are prohibited.

1122. Ensure laws regulating coastal construction and beach armoring are
enforced.

Illegal beach armoring occurs, and all too frequently no effective action
is taken by enforcement agencies to ensure the perpetrator removes the
material and restores the habitat. Illegal beach armoring can cumulatively
cause significant degradation of nesting habitat. FDNR, GDNR, SCCC,
and NCDNR must frequently monitor beaches and maintain strict
enforcement when violations are observed.

1123. Ensure failed erosion control structures are removed.

Failed erosion contro! structures such as uncovered plastic bags or tubes
and fragmented concrete or wooden structures degrade nesting habitat and
deter nesting activities. FDNR, GDNR, SCCC and NCDNR should
ensure failed structures are removed from nesting beaches.

1124. Develop standard requirements for sand fence construction.

Sand fences can effectively build dune systems and improve nesting
habitat, however improperly designed sand fences can trap nesting females
or hatchlings and prevent access to suitable nesting habitat. FDNR,
GDNR, SCWMRD, SCCC, NCDNR and FWS should develop and
evaluate sand fencing designs and establish standard requirements for sand
fence construction.

23


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current status: The loggerhead is federally listed as threatened worldwide. Nesting in the
United States occurs primarily along North Carolina (1.0 percent), South Carolina (6.5 percent),
Georgia (1.5 percent), and Florida (91 percent) beaches and accounts for approximately one-
third of the world population. Nesting trends are declining in Georgia and South Carolina,
unknown in North Carolina and appear stable in Florida. Coastal development threatens nesting
habitat and populations while commercial fisheries and pollution pose significant threats in the
marine environment.

Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species in the United States once recovery criteria are
met.

Recovery criteria: The southeastern United States population of the loggerhead can be
considered for delisting if, over a period of 25 years, the following conditions are met:

1, The adult female population in Florida is increasing and in North Carolina, South Carolina
and Georgia, it has returned to pre-listing nesting levels (NC = 800 nests/season; SC =
10,000 nests/season; GA - 2,000 nests/season).

2. At least 25 percent (560 km) of all available nesting beaches (2240 km) is in public
ownership, is distributed over the entire nesting range and encompasses greater than 50
percent of the nesting activity.

3. All priority one tasks have been successfully implemented.
Actions needed: Six major actions are needed to achieve recovery.

1, Provide long-term protection to important nesting beaches.
2. Ensure at least 60 percent hatch success on major nesting beaches.

3. Implement effective lighting ordinances or lighting plans on all major nesting beaches
within each State.

4. Determine distribution and seasonal movements for all life stages in marine environment.
Minimize mortality from commercial fisheries.

5
6. Reduce threat from marine pollution.

Date of recovery: If funds are available to accomplish recovery tasks and new information does
not indicate other limiting factors, the anticipated date of recovery is 2015.

Total cost of recovery: *

Land acquisition: $90,000,000
Actions on nesting beaches $12,200,000
Actions in marine environment $49,500,000

*$145,700,000 of these costs are shared with actions identified in the Green Turtle Recovery Plan.

iii


acd
tas
test
leg]
>

The original Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles was approved by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, September 19, 1984. The plan included the loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback (Dermochelys
coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempi).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service share the responsibility for
sea turtle recovery under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as arnended. In an effort
to better coordinate a recovery program for sea turtles, both Services recognized the need to reassess
present conservation efforts and consider the new biological information available since approval of the
original recovery plan. To accomplish this, the Services created a Loggerhead/Green Turtle Recovery
Team, Leatherback/Hawksbill Recovery Team and a Kemp’s Ridley Recovery Team. The Recovery
Teams have developed separate species plans to provide greater focus and emphasize the uniqueness of
individual species. This revision was undertaken by the Loggerhead/Green Turtle Recovery Team
consisting of the following team members:

Dr. Llewellyn M. Ehrhart, Team Leader
University of Central Florida

Dr. Karen A. Bjorndal
Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida

Dr. Terry A. Henwood
National Marine Fisheries Service

Ms. Barbara A. Schroeder
Florida Department of Natural Resources

Ms. Sally R. Murphy
South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources

Mr. Earl E. Possardt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

This revised plan incorporates the new format that has become standard in recovery plans in recent years.
It is intended to serve as a guide that delineates and schedules those actions believed necessary to restore
the Atlantic green turtle as a viable self-sustaining element of its ecosystem. It is recognized that some
of the tasks described in the plan are well underway. The inclusion of these ongoing tasks represents an
awareness of their importance, and offers support for their continuation.


Pound Net Fisheries: Pound nets are fished extensively in the inshore bays and sounds of
North Carolina, Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. In Virginia, pound nets have been
identified as a leading cause of marine turtle mortality (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985). Mortality
was principally caused by entanglement and drowning in the leader portion of the gear and was
dependent on mesh size, net location and environmental parameters. In North Carolina, most
pound nets have leads constructed of small mesh (13 to 20 cm). Results of preliminary
investigations indicate that mortality in these nets may be infrequent (Epperly and Veishlow,
1989). Similarly, in New York, most turtles are released alive from pound nets and
entanglement in leaders appears infrequent (V. Burke, pers. comm.).

Longline Fisheries: Longline fisheries have increased dramatically over the past several years.
Species targeted in these fisheries include tuna, shark and swordfish. Witzell (1987) estimated
that 330 turtles were incidentally captured in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic by the Japanese
tuna longline fleet during 1978 to 1981. Due to increased effort and expansion of longline
fisheries in recent years, it is believed that longline fisheries may be exerting a major negative
impact on marine turtle recovery (T. Henwood, pers. comm.).

Trap Fisheries: Traps are commonly used in the capture of crabs, lobster and reef fish. Traps
vary in size and configuration but all are attached to a surface float by means of a line leading
to the trap. Turtles can become entangled in trap lines below the surface of the water and
subsequently drown. In other instances, stranded turtles have been recovered entangled in trap
lines with the trap in tow. Loggerhead turtles may be particularly vulnerable to entanglement
in trap lines because of their attraction to, or attempts to feed on, species caught in the traps and
epibionts growing on traps, trap lines and floats. The impact of this gear on loggerhead
populations has not been quantified. :

Boat Collisions: Propeller and collision injuries to marine turtles from boats and ships are not
uncommon. In 1986, 1987 and 1988 respectively, 5.8 percent (111), 7.3 percent (175), and 9.0
percent (179) of all stranded turtles reported along the United States Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic
were documented as having sustained some type of propeller or collision injuries, although it is
unknown what percentage of these injuries were post-mortem versus ante-mortem (Schroeder
and Warner, 1988; Teas and Martinez, 1989). These types of injuries are recorded at higher
frequencies in areas where recreational boating and vessel traffic is intense, such as south
Florida and the Florida Keys.

Power Plant Entrapment: The entrainment and entrapment of turtles in saltwater cooling
intake systems of coastal power plants has been documented in New Jersey, North Carolina,
Florida and Texas (Roithmayr and Henwood, 1982, Emest er al., 1989; S. Manzella, pers.
comm.; T. Henson, pers. comm.; R. Schoelkopf, pers. comm.). Average annual incidental
capture rates for most coastal plants from which captures have beer: reported amount to several
turtles per plant per year. One notable exception is the St. Lucie nuclear power plant located
on Hutchinson Island, Florida. During a 15-year period of operation (May 1976 to December
1990), 2,193 sea turtles (all species) have been removed from the intake canal. While most of
these turtles are released alive, the mortality rate is approximately 7.0 percent (Applied Biology,

12


of Quintana Roo (R. Gil, pers. comm.). Worldwide, about 88 percent of loggerhead nesting
occurs in the southeastern United States, Oman, and Australia. In the western Atlantic the great
bulk of the nesting occurs along the southeastern United States coast, with approximately 80
percent occurring in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach and Broward
Counties in Florida. There are also significant nesting assemblages in Georgia, South Carolina,
North Carolina and along the Gulf Coast of southwest Florida.

It is not possible, at present, to estimate the size of the loggerhead population in United States
territorial waters if one includes subadults. There is, however, general agreement with Meylan
(1982) that enumeration of nesting females provides a useful index to population size and
stability. The estimate of 14,150 females nesting per year in the southeastern United States
given by Murphy and Hopkins (1984) and based on aerial survey data from 1983, was accepted
by Mager (1985) and more recently by Ekrhart (1989) as the current best approximation. Given
Murphy and Hopkins’ (1984) stochastically derived mean number of nests per female (4.1), this
figure provides an estimate of approximately 58,000 nests deposited per year in the Southeast.
Based on more extensive ground and aerial surveys throughout the Southeast in recent years
(1987 to 1990), it is estimated that approximately 50,000-70,000 nests are deposited annually
(FDNR, unpubl. data; GDNR, unpubl. data; SCWMRD, unpubl. data, NCDNR, unpubl. data).
These totals constitute about 35 to 40 percent of the loggerhead nesting known worldwide and
clearly rank the southeastern United States aggregation as the second largest in the world, with
the somewhat larger Oman assemblage being the only other truly large group remaining
anywhere (Ross, 1982).

Status: The loggerhead was listed on July 28, 1978, as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Internationally it is considered "Vulnerable" by the IUCN
(Groombridge, 1982) and is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES). In a recent review, Ehrhart (1989),
considered consequences of life tables and population models (Richardson and Richardson, 1982;
Frazer, 1983; Crouse et al., 1987), mortality rates in the Southeast; population declines in South
Carolina and Georgia; and Murphy and Hopkins’ (1984) estimate of annual mean clutch
production per female. Ehrhart concluded that the stock of loggerheads represented by females
that nest in the Southeast is continuing to decline.

Biological Characteristics: The recent literature dealing with loggerhead biology is extensive
and only a brief treatment is warranted here. However, a number of thorough synopses of
loggerhead biology are currently available. The most recent and extensive is the work of Dodd
(1988) but those of Pritchard and Trebbau (1984) and Groombridge (1982) are also very
comprehensive and useful.

Habitat: As a generality, adult female loggerheads select high energy beaches on barrier
strands adjacent to continental land masses for nesting. There is some evidence that steeply
sloped beaches with gradually sloped offshore approaches are favored (Provancha and Ehrhart,
1987). After leaving the beach, hatchlings apparently swim directly offshore and eventually
become associated with Sargassum and/or debris in pelagic drift lines that result from current

2


resulted in regulations requiring their use. The final regulations were published in June 1987.
After legal, congressional and administrative delays, the regulations went into effect in
September 1989. South Carolina promulgated emergency State regulations requiring TEDs in
State waters in June 1988 and implemented permanent regulations in 1989. Florida implemented
emergency State regulations in February 1989, after unprecedented numbers of strandings the
previous fall. Florida implemented permanent Statewide year-round regulations in June 1990.
The State of Georgia developed TED regulations which went into effect in November 1990.

Incidental catch mortality from the Atlantic sturgeon fishery was reduced in South Carolina
by an earlier ending of the sturgeon fishing season. Later, because of reduced stocks of
sturgeon, the season was closed entirely. This all but eliminated early spring strandings of sea
turtles in South Carolina (S. Murphy, unpubl. data).

The number of sea turtle carcasses reported in the Chesapeake Bay is declining, not because
of changes in gear, but due to economics. In the 1930's, pound nets numbered about 3,000 in
the bay. The deep water nets are more expensive now, and the number of nets have decreased
by an order of magnitude (J. Musick, pers. comm.).

In consultation with the COE, FDNR and the NMFS, modifications of dragheads are being
tested to minimize turtle mortality from dredges. Each dredging project undergoes a Section 7
consultation as required under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. Asa result of these
Section 7 consultations, dredging contractors are often required to have observers onboard and
the timing of the projects is usually designed to avoid as many turtle encounters as possible.

Research into methods of preventing turtles from entering the intake pipes at power plants
proved unsuccessful. Turtles that are entrapped at the St. Lucie plant are captured, tagged and
released.

On December 31, 1987, the United States ratified Optional Annex V of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as the MARPOL Protocol.
Annex V prohibits the dumping of all plastic wastes, including plastic packaging materials and
fishing gear, from all ships at sea. Not only does this mark the first effort in United States law
to address the problem of plastic debris in the oceans, but the ratification of Annex WV enables
the law to come into force internationally. According to United States law, it is now illegal for
any ship of any size to dump plastic trash in the oceans, bays, rivers and other navigable waters
of the United States (O'Hara et al., 1988)

Directed research has been done to document habitat use and behavior of sea turtles in
nearshore waters; a few examples follow. Hopkins and Murphy (1980) used sonic and radio
transmitters to study habitat use and internesting behavior of 39 adult female loggerhead turtles.
In 1985, 1986 and 1989, Murphy and Hopkins-Murphy (1990) radio-instrumented 31 adult
female loggerheads prior to nesting and relocated them 64 km from their nesting beach to
determine if they would accept an alternate beach or home to their previous nesting area.
Juvenile and subadult loggerheads were also radio tracked in Chesapeake Bay to document

18


Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE

Caretta caretta

=

Pesce

“raen or

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service

ism 9 WILDLIFE
semVECE.

US. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
USS. Fish and Wildlife Service



2292.

2293.

2294.

Develop manual for treatment of disease and injuries.

FWS and NMFS should determine disease problems associated with
captive sea turtles and publish a manual on the diagnosis and treatment of
such diseases. This manual should also include treatment for common
injuries. This will improve rehabilitative success and captive care of
research and display specimens.

Establish catalog for all captive sea turtles to enhance utilization for
research and education.

Currently captive sea turtles are being held at over 50 facilities. The
FWS and NMFS should establish a catalog and act as a clearing house to
ensure captive specimens are utilized efficiently to diminish the need for
removing additional specimens from the wild.

Designate rehabilitation facilities.

FWS and NMFS in coordination with the appropriate State agencies
should designate rehabilitation facilities for Atlantic and Gulf Coast states.
Designation should be based on availability of veterinary personnel with
expertise or experience in reptilian care and the institution's ability to
comply with care and maintenance standards developed in step 2291
above. Each facility should be inspected by a team including a NMFS,
FWS, and appropriate State representative prior to its designation as a
rehabilitation facility. Inspections should be conducted at least annually
thereafter.

3. Information and education.

Sea turtle conservation requires long-term public support over a large geographic area.
The public must be factually informed of the issues particularly when conservation
measures conflict with human activities such as commercial fisheries, beach development
and public use of nesting beaches. Public education is the foundation upon which a long-
term conservation program will succeed or fail.

31.

Provide slide programs and information leaflets on sea turtle conservation for
general public.

The FWS has developed a bi-lingual slide tape program on sea turtle conservation
and should keep the program current and available for all public institutions. The
FWS and State resource agencies should continually update and supply the public
with informational brochures on sea turtle ecology and conservation needs.

41


the Florida east coast suggest widely dispersed foraging areas in the Gulf of Mexico, Cuba and
elsewhere in the Greater Antilles, and the Bahamas (Meylan er al., 1983). While conclusive
evidence is lacking as yet, it is assumed that these females remigrate hundreds or thousands of
kilometers at multi-annual intervals (see above) to nest on the good, high energy nesting beaches
of east Florida. Bell and Richardson (1978) reported tag recoveries suggesting a “migratory
path" from Georgia to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and a single recovery of a Georgia tagged
female on the Florida Gulf Coast (Tampa Bay). Little else is known of the scheduled travels
of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina nesters outside of the nesting season.

Threats - Nesting Environment

Beach Erosion: Erosion of nesting beaches can result in partial or total loss of suitable nesting
habitat. Erosion rates are influenced by dynamic coastal processes, including sea level rise.
Man’s interference with these natural processes through coastal development and associated
activities has resulted in accelerated erosion rates and interruption of natural shoreline migration.

Beach Armoring: Where beachfront development occurs, the site is often fortified to protect
the property from erosion. Virtually all shoreline engineering is carried out to save structures,
not dry sandy beaches, and ultimately results in environmental damage. One type of shoreline
engineering, collectively referred to as beach armoring, includes sea walls, rock revetments,
riprap, sandbag installations, groins and jetties. Beach armoring can result in permanent loss
of a dry nesting beach through accelerated erosion and prevention of natural beach/dune
accretion and can prevent or hamper nesting females from accessing suitable nesting sites.
Clutches deposited seaward of these structures may be inundated at high tide or washed out
entirely by increased wave action near the base of these structures. As these structures fail and
break apart they spread debris on the beach which may further impede access to suitable nesting
sites (resulting in higher incidences of false crawls) and trap hatchlings and nesting turtles.
Sandbags are particularly susceptible to rapid failure and result in extensive debris on nesting
beaches. Rock revetments, riprap and sand bags can cause nesting turtles to abandon nesting
attempts or to construct improperly sized and shaped egg cavities when inadequate amounts of
sand cover these structures. Approximately 21 percent (234 km) of Florida’s, 10 percent

(18 km) of Georgia’s and 10 percent (30 km) of South Carolina’s beaches are armored (FDNR,
unpubl. data; S. Murphy, pers. comm.; J. Richardson, pers. comm.).

Groins and jetties are designed to trap sand during transport in longshore currents or to keep
sand from flowing into channels in the case of the latter. These structures prevent normal sand
transport and accrete beaches on one side of the structure while starving neighboring beaches
on the other side thereby resulting in severe beach erosion (Pilkey et al., 1984) and
corresponding degradation of suitable nesting habitat.

Drift fences, also commonly called sand fences, are erected to build and stabilize dunes by
trapping sand moving along the beach and preventing excessive sand loss. Additionally, these
fences can serve to protect dune systems by deterring public access. Constructed of narrowly


early June period (Caldwell, 1959; Caldwell et al., 1959a; Fritts et al., 1983). While a few
adult males may remain off the Florida coast throughout the year (Henwood, 1987), most of
them apparently depart by about mid-June, leaving the females to ascend the nesting beaches and
deposit clutches throughout the summer. Nevertheless, courtship and mating are not well studied
in loggerheads (or other sea turtles), and there is no doubt that this and virtually every other
aspect of the biology of male loggerhead needs further research and clarification.

In the southeastern United States adult females begin to nest as early as late April (some
years) and they continue to do so until early September. Nesting activity is greatest, however,
in June and July. In Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina the season generally begins
in mid-May and ends by mid-August. Loggerheads are known to nest from one to seven times
within a nesting season (Talbert et al., 1980; Richardson and Richardson, 1982; Lenarz et al.,
1981; among others); the mean is approximately 4.1 (Murphy and Hopkins, 1984). The
internesting interval varies around a mean of about 14 days. There is general agreement with
Caldwell et al. (1959b) that females mate prior to the nesting season (and possibly only once)
and then lay multiple clutches of fertile eggs throughout some portion of the nesting season.
Mean clutch size varies from about 100 to 126 along the southeastern United States coast.

Loggerheads are nocturnal nesters, but exceptions to the rule do occur infrequently (Fritts
and Hoffman, 1982; Witherington, 1986; among others). Although a definitive ethogram of
loggerhead nesting behavior has yet to be published, good descriptive accounts have been given
by Carr (1952); Litwin (1978) and Caldwell et al., (1959a). Multi-annual remigration intervals
of two and three years are most common in loggerheads, but the number can vary from one to
six years (Richardson er al., 1978; Bjorndal et al., 1983). Natural incubation periods for United
States loggerheads average from 53-55 days in Florida (Davis and Whiting, 1977; Witherington,
1986) to 63 and 68 days in Georgia (Kraemer, 1979) and North Carolina (Crouse, 1985),
respectively. The length of the incubation period is inversely related to nest temperature
(McGehee, 1979). Sex determination in loggerhead hatchlings is temperature dependent
(Yntema, 1982; Yntema and Mrosovsky, 1980) and the species apparently lacks sex
chromosomes (Standora and Spotila, 1985). Natural hatching success rates of 73.4 percent and
55.7 percent have been reported in South Carolina (Caldwell, 1959) and Florida (Witherington,
1986), respectively.

Movements: Loggerhead hatchlings engage in a “swimming frenzy" for about 20 hours after
they enter the sea and that frenzy takes them about 22 to 28 kilometers offshore (Salmon and
Wyneken, 1987). At some point thereafter they become associated with Sargassum rafts and/or
debris at current gyres (Carr, 1986b). Upon reaching about 45 cm sCL, they abandon the pelagic
existence and migrate to near-shore and estuarine waters of the eastern United States, the Gulf
of Mexico and the Bahamas and begin the subadult stage. Little is known of their seasonal
movements there, but Henwood (1987) has reported a tendency for subadults of the Port
Canaveral (Florida) aggregation to disperse more widely in the spring and early summer. Also,
Chesapeake Bay subadults are known to exhibit a variety of movements between waters of
differing temperatures and salinities (Killingly and Lutcavage, 1983). As adults, loggerheads
become migratory for the purpose of breeding. Recoveries of females tagged while nesting on

4


Witzell, W.N. 1987. The incidental capture of sea turtles in the Atlantic United States fishery
conservation zone by the Japanese tuna longline fleet, 1978-81. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(3):56-58.

Wolke, R.E. 1989. Pathology and sea turtle conservation. Unpubl. Report, 25p.

Wolke, R.E., D.R. Brooks, and A. George. 1982. Spirorchidiasis in loggerhead sea turtles
Caretta caretta: pathology. J. Wildl. Dis. 18:175-185.

Yntema, C.I. 1982. Critical periods and pivotal temperatures for sexual differentiation in
loggerhead sea turtles. Can. J. Zool. 60:1012-1016.

Yntema, C.I., and N. Mrosovsky. 1980. Sexual differentiation in hatchling loggerheads
Caretta caretta incubated at different controlled temperatures. Herpetologica 36:33-36.

54


224,

Monitor and prevent adverse impacts from oil and gas activities.

Oil can alter respiration, severely damage skin, interfere with or stop salt gland
function and ultimately lead to the death of turtles. Tar balls pose a particularly
serious threat to post-hatchlings and small juveniles since tar balls are frequently
eaten and accumulate in the same driftlines which these life stages inhabit.

2241. Determine the effects of oil and oil dispersants on all life stages.

Oil spills resulting from blowouts, ruptured pipelines, tanker accidents, or
other accidents could have a major impact on the recovery of listed sea
turtles. As evidenced by the recent Exxon catastrophe in Alaska, Federal
and industry ability to respond to a major spill is woefully lacking.
Therefore, it is essential that we have knowledge of the effects of oil and
oil dispersants on all sea turtle life stages to allow adequate assessment of
risks and implementation of contingency plans should a major oil spill
occur. MMS, FWS, NMFS and the oil and gas industry should fund
appropriate research.

2242. Ensure that impacts to sea turtles are adequately addressed during
planning of oil and gas development.

In assessing the potential impacts of oil and gas activities, it is necessary
to look beyond the exploration, development, production and abandonment
of single wells, and consider the industry as a whole. In the Gulf of
Mexico alone, there are 4,500 existing offshore structures and thousands
more projected over the next 20 years. These structures are linked by
miles of underwater pipelines, and are supported by fleets of vessels and
aircraft. Production and storage facilities onshore supply refined products
for tanker transport and land transport throughout the country. The
chances of isolated accidents, when considering the existing infrastructure,
are very high. Additionally, the cumulative impacts of chronic discharges
from thousands of independent structures could be significant. Explosive
removai of structures during the abandonment phase of these activities has
also been identified as a potential source of mortality to sea turtles.
NMFS, MMS, FWS, and the oil and gas industry should take whatever
actions are necessary to ensure that adequate precautions are taken to
avoid impacts to sea turtles.

37


island would be preferable. Conservation easements should be acquired
on developed properties where fee title acquisition is not possible.

1142, Evaluate the status of the high density nesting beaches on Hutchinson
Island, Florida, and develop a plan to ensure its long-term protection.

Approximately 10 percent of loggerhead nesting in United States occurs
along this 32 km beach. Development is degrading nesting habitat and
public use is causing significant disturbance to nesting activities. FDNR
and FWS should evaluate the threats and take appropriate measures
including acquisition to ensure long-term protection.

1143. Evaluate status of other undeveloped beaches which provide important
habitat for maintaining the historic nesting distribution and develop
a plan for long-term protection.

FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD, NCDNR and FWS should evaluate other
nesting beaches in the Southeast which contribute significantly to the
historic nesting distribution to ensure permanent protection.

115. Remove exotic vegetation and prevent spread to nesting beaches.

Australian pine trees shade nests and can alter natural hatchling sex ratios.
Australian pines also aggressively replace native dune and beach vegetation
through shading and chemical inhibition and consequently exacerbate erosion and
loss of nesting habitat. Erosion can topple trees and leave exposed roots which
can entrap nesting females.

Removal of exotics such as is ongoing at St. Lucie Inlet State Park, Florida, and
Hobe Sound NWR, Florida should continue. FDNR, FWS, and NPS should
identify other important nesting beaches where exotic vegetation is degrading
nesting habitat and work with responsible parties to restore natural vegetation.

12. Protect marine habitat.

Available sea turtle habitat has been significantly reduced over the past century. Among
the factors contributing to this loss of habitat are coastal development and
industrialization, increased commercial and recreational vessel activities, river and
estuarine pollution, channelization, offshore oil and gas development and commercial
fishing activities. If present trends continue, the cumulative loss of suitable habitat could
reduce the likelihood of recovery of the species.

25


32.

33.

34,

35.

Develop brochure on recommended fighting modifications or measures to
reduce hatchling disorientation and misorientation.

Most lighting ordinances require lights be shut off or modified to prevent direct
lighting on the nesting beach. However, it is not always clear what types of
light, screening or shading work best and the appropriate use of low pressure
sodium lights needs to be clearly explained. The FWS, NMFS and State resource
agencies should jointly develop and publish a brochure or booklet with
recommended lighting fixtures, lights, shading modifications and operational
constraints.

Develop public service announcements (PSA) regarding the sea turtle
artificial lighting conflict, and disturbance of nesting activities by public
nighttime beach activities.

A professionally produced public service announcement for radio and TV would
provide tremendous support and reinforcement of the many coastal lighting
ordinances. It would generate greater support through understanding. The FWS,
and State resource agencies should develop a high quality PSA which could be
used throughout the Southeast during the nesting season.

Ensure facilities permitted to hold and display captive sea turtles have
appropriate informational displays.

Over 50 facilities are permitted to hold sea turtles for rehabilitation, research and
public education. Many are on public display and afford opportunities for public
education. Display of accurate information on the basic biology and conservation
problems should be a requirement of all permittees. All facilities should be
visited by FWS, NMFS and the State permitting agencies to ensure captive sea
turtles are being displayed in a way to meet these criteria.

Develop standard criteria and recommendations for sea turtle nesting
interpretive walks.

Sea turtle walks are popular with the public and afford tremendous opportunities
for public education or, if poorly conducted, misinformation. State permitting
agencies and the FWS should develop standards for permittees conducting walks.
These objective criteria should be used to evaluate sea turtle walks to ensure they
are professional, provide accurate biological information, convey an accurate
conservation message, and are a positive experience. Just as importantly they
should not cause unnecessary or significant disturbance to nesting turtles.

42


113.

Evaluate and implement measures to enhance important nesting habitat
where erosion or tidal inundation destroy over 40 percent of nests in a typical
year (without relocation).

Some important nesting beaches now suffer severe erosion as a result of previous
river diversions, inlet maintenance or jetty construction. Limited safe locations
for beach hatcheries in some situations place constraints on nest relocation
programs. Nest relocation programs at best should be consiclered as a short-term
measure to protect nests in these situations with primary efforts directed towards
habitat restoration.

1131. Evaluate dune restoration or other measures to mitigate erosion on
Cape Island, S.C.

Diversion of the natural drainage of the Santee River in the 1940’s has
caused a severe erosion problem at Cape Island. About 25 percent of all
nesting in South Carolina occurs on Cape Island. Fifty to 80 percent of
the nests would be lost to tidal inundation or erosion without nest
relocation. The FWS relocates 300-600 nests each year to hatcheries.
Suitable sites for self-release beach hatcheries are more scarce each year.
Consequently dune restoration and other measures to enhance nesting
habitat should be evaluated and implemented by FWS and COE.

1132. Identify other important nesting beaches experiencing greater than
40 percent nest loss from erosion and implement appropriate habitat
restoration measures.

FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD, NCDNR, and FWS should review all
important nesting beaches and identify those with 40 percent or more nest
loss due to erosion or tidal inundation. Habitat restoration plans should
be developed and implemented for identified nesting beaches.

Acquire or otherwise ensure the long-term protection of important nesting
beaches.

1141. Acquire in fee title all undeveloped beaches between Melbourne Beach
and Wabasso Beach, Florida.

Approximately 25 percent of all loggerhead nesting in the United States
occurs along this 33 km mile stretch of nesting beach. Developrnent and
public use threatens the habitat and nesting activities. The FWS and
FDNR should acquire a buffer strip in fee title that at least extends from
mean high water west to highway AIA to ensure the long-term protection
of this nesting habitat. An ocean to river buffer along the narrow barrier

24


19

| i { | t ! | | |
I i | | ' ! | i
! 1 ! 1 t 1 ' |
‘eupnoy| 1 ! 1 t i | € |
| 4 i { i 1 ! i
I j | | | | sorousbs | | |
1 | 1 t i {| souose: ewig | i i
eunnoy| 1 1 | I 1 SAWN | Suinunuos | t 1
| | t i | | ' | !
| { { ! | I t ! sexes dyyssonraune|
Lizz Ut pepnyo| i | | ' ! t | ‘Apmeus jenxes 12 668]
uy mys00 revenspev 00z 1 00z! oz! 00%! t | Z of gbez | ‘sees mosB euunereg| O-d ‘L-E
i | | 1 ! | | i I
{ | i | i | { | | ‘suonsindod|
! | | | | | esunoss: ewig | 1 | t qynpeqne/eyuean{|
iz ul ' I 1 { | smi | 1 | 1 *S°f 405 sus6y0 uonein|
Pepnpour #3805! ' t 1 I 1 ‘Sawn | sued s | © | wtzz | -dod Buypeosg oumeregl cw ‘vhe
1 1 I i ' 1 1 ! ! !
i 1 1 { t | sWW | i ! i} t
1 1 t 1 1 I 309 | | | i spunoi8 Gui6e103 |
| i | | | ! SMd | | | | Yo pus sernoy AsoyesB1|
‘exeunse on| ! | 1 | 4 SAWN | Suynunuos | Z 1 e1ZZ | Suoje seen ound CW
I | | t | I 1 1 i} 1
I { | ! 1 | 309 | 1 t | ®uewerow pus]
{ | i ! 1 | sWH | ' ' 1
sepuede jie] I t | l ! smd | { | i
4oy woo i041! ogz | ogz! osz | ogz | ! ‘S4WN H sued g | z H zzz
{ t t { | 1
| 1 { i I ! YNOON | i { 1
1 | | ! | ! ‘quawMos | 1 | !
| | i 1 | i ‘unas | | | 1
| i | | | | ‘Md ‘NGS | I ' 1
serousde j10| | | | | | "sma ‘309 | | i !
wyryoo oy] WZ I WZ) We WZ I | ‘SWIN ‘SAWN | #4804 02-51 H L | uizz |
| | I ! i { | I
I 1 l i} I | 1 1 i 1
| oar! ost} ost! ost! | sm | | e | ez
eon! GAsl vad! CAS! ZAG! queun| AoueBy | Ayvoug| sequin | yee uejg] AsoBere3|
Ievewwes | 000% #1805 eA [eoe!y porewne; | eiqievodsoy | Lyeeit [L__teseuep|

(OL#A WONG AJQAODaY) B]UIN] peayse6507
FINGSHIS NOILV.LNAW3IdWI


PART I. INTRODUCTION

Taxonomy: The loggerhead was described by Linnaeus (1758) and named Testudo caretta.
Over the next two centuries more than 35 names were applied to the species (Dodd, 1988), but
there is now general agreement on Caretta caretta as the valid name. While Deraniyagala
described an Indo-Pacific form as C. gigas in 1933, he revised that view in 1939 to hold that
gigas was only a subspecies of C. caretta and the genus has generally been regarded as
monotypic since that time. The subspecific designation of gigas has likewise been challenged
persuasively (Brongersma, 1961; Pritchard, 1979; among others). Dodd (1988) has declared
flatly that "the diagnostic characters used to distinguish C. c. gigas from C. c. caretta are not
valid." Thorough synonymies and taxonomic reviews of this form are given most recently by
Pritchard and Trebbau (1984) and Dodd (1988).

Description: The carapace of adult and subadult loggerheads is reddish-brown. The dorsal and
lateral head scales and the dorsal scales of the extremities are also reddish-brown, but with light
yellow margins that vary enough in extent to provide considerable disparity in appearance among
individuals. The unscaled area of the integument (neck, shoulders, limb bases) are dull brown
above and medium yellow laterally and ventrally. The plastron is also medium yellow. The
thick, bony carapace is covered by non-imbricated horny scutes. There are 5 pairs of costals
(pleurals), 11 or 12 pairs of marginals, 5 vertebrals and a nuchal (precentral) that is in contact
with the first costal. Ventrally there are usually three pairs of poreless inframarginals, paired
gulars, humerals, pectorals, abdominals, femorals and anals. An interanal is variable and
inconstant. Mean straight carapace length (sCL) of adult southeastern United States loggerheads
is about 92 cm; corresponding mean body mass is about 113 kg. Elsewhere adult loggerheads
are somewhat smaller, on average, the most notable being those in Colombia (Kaufmann, 1975),
Greece (Margaritoulis, 1982) and Tongaland (Hughes, 1975). Loggerheads rarely exceed 122
cm sCL and 227 kg mass in the modern day.

Hatchlings lack the reddish tinge and vary from light to dark brown dorsally. Both pairs
of appendages are dark brown above and have distinct white margins. The plastron and other
ventral surfaces may be described as dull yellowish tan and there is usually some brown
pigmentation in the phalangeal portion of the web ventrally. At hatching mean body mass is
about 20 g and mean sCL is about 45 mm. Hatchlings have three dorsal keels and two plastral
ones.

Population Distribution and Size: The geographic distribution of Caretta carerta includes the
temperate and tropical waters of both hemispheres. The species inhabits the continental shelves
and estuarine environments along the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. In the
Western Hemisphere it ranges as far north as Newfoundland (Squires, 1954) and as far south
as Argentina (Frazier, 1984) and Chile (Frazier and Salas, 1982). The nesting range is confined
to lower latitudes, but loggerhead nesting is clearly concentrated in the north and south
temperate zones and subtropics. Pritchard (1979) used the term “antitropical" to describe the
aversion exhibited by loggerheads to beaches in Central America, northern South America and
throughout the Old World Tropics. Notable exceptions to this rule would include the largest
known nesting aggregation, on Masirah and the Kuria Muria Islands of Oman (Ross and
Barwani, 1982) and perhaps, the recently reported nesting assemblage on the Caribbean coast


Table 1. Major loggerhead nest survey/protection projects in the southeastern United States, 1985 to 1990. Includes
consistently monitored survey areas reporting greater than 100 nests annually. Not all beaches were surveyed during the entire

Number of nests

Conservation measure(s)*

6-year period.

Project Beach length (km)
Baldhead Island, NC 19.3
Sand/South Islands, SC 8.0
Cape Romain NWR, SC 8.0
Kiawah Island, SC 15.0
Edisto Island, SC 18.3
Otter Island, SC 43
Hunting Island, SC 7.0
Fripp Island, SC 6.0
Pritchard's Island, SC 4.0
Bay Point, SC 5.0
Hilton Head, SC 29.0
Blackbeard Island NWR, GA 11.2
Ossabaw Island, GA 15.2
Cumberland Island NS, GA 28.0
Flagler County Beaches, FL 29.0
New Smyrna Beach, FL 16.1
Canaveral National Seashore, FL 37.4
Merritt Island NWR, FL 9.6
Cape Canaveral AFS, FL 21.0
Patrick AFB, FL 7.0
Melbourne Beach, FL 21.0
Sebastian Inlet SRA, FL 4.8
Wabasso Beach, FL 8.0
Vero Beach, FL 7.0
Hutchinson Island, FL 36.5
St. Lucie Inlet SP, FL 4.3
Hobe Sound NWR, FL 5.3
Town of Jupiter, FL 12.1
Juno Beach, FL. 8.1
J.D. MacArthur SP, FL 2.9
Delray Beach, FL 3.5
City of Boca Raton, FL 8.0
Broward County Beaches, FL 38.6
Miami Area Beaches, FL 16.9
Manasota Key, FL 18.9
Casey Key, FL 8.2
Sanibel Island, FL 18.5
Wiggins Pass Area Beaches, FL 6.4
Keewaydin Island, FL 72

95-281

111-373
796-1361
84-268
111-553
70-196
105-175
51-176
57-176
131-195
115-160

110-234
56-114
158-172

75-326
166-206
1670-3925
993-1791
1284-2115
923-1459
8864-14328
513-921
1197-1256
199-349
4637-6711
289-432
1202-1732
2640-6431
2790-4664**
496-1062
138-288
874-1100
1244-2283
64-182
312-884
107-459
110-137
106-215
96-137

S/NR

S/NR/NS/PR
S/NR/PR
S/NR/NS
S/NR/NS/PR
S/NR/NS/PR
S/NR
S/NR/NS
S/NR/NS
S/NR/NS/PR
S/NR

S/NR/NS/PR
S/NS/PR
s

s

S/NR
S/NS
S/PR
S/PR

S/PR
S/PR

S/NR

S/PR
S/PR

S/PR
S/NR
S/NR/NS
S/NE/NS
S/NR
S/NR
S/NR

S/NS
S/NR/NS

* S=Survey
NS=Nest Screening

NR=Néest Relocation
PR=Predator Removal

15

** 1989-1990 data only


Salmon, M., and’J. Wyneken. 1987. Orientation and swimming behavior of hatchling
loggerhead sea turtles Carerta caretta during their off-shore migration. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 109:137-153.

Schaefer, C., L. Barger, and H. Kumpf. 1987. Report on the drift gillnet fishery in the Fort
Pierce-Port Salerno area off the east coast of Florida. Unpubl. NMFS Report, 24p.

Schmelz, G.W., and R.R. Mezich. 1988. A preliminary investigation of the potential impact
of Australian pines on the nesting activities of the loggerhead turtle, p. 63-66. In B.A.
Schroeder (comp.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference on Sea Turtle Conservation
and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214.

Schroeder, B.A. 1981. Predation and nest success in two species of marine turtles (Caretta
caretta and Chelonia mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida. Fla. Sci. 44(1):35.

Schroeder, B.A. 1987. Strandings of marine turtles along the United States Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico coasts (1986). (abstract). Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation, February 1987, Wekiva Springs State Park, Florida.

Schroeder, B.A., and A.A. Warner. 1988. 1987 Annual report of the sea turtle stranding and
salvage network, Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. NMFS/SEFC, Miami
Laboratory, Coastal Resources Division Contrib. No. CRD-87/88-28, 45p.

Schwartz, F.J. 1988. Aggregation of young hatchling sea turtles in Sargassum off North
Carolina. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 42: 9-10.

Shoup, L.P., and R.E. Wolf. 1987. Boca Raton beach area outdoor lighting restrictions for
the protection of sea turtles. (abstract). Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation, February 1987, Wekiva Springs State Park, Florida.

Squires, H.J. 1954. Records of marine turtles in the Newfoundland area. Copeia 1954:68.

Stancyk, S.E. 1982. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control, p.139-152. InK.A.
Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Stancyk, S.E., O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle
Caretta caretta in South Carolina, TI: protection of nests from raccoon predation by
transplantation. Biol. Conserv. 18:289-298.

Standora, E.A., and J.R. Spotila. 1985. Temperature dependent sex determination in sea
turtles. Copeia 1985:711-722.

52


6S

I | 1 I ! | 1
| ! ! | sony | | |
I i t 1 pus senunos | | |
| 1 | {| yerse0o 14 pur | | | ‘seousulpso Bunyp!
i | i 1 "VD ‘9S ‘DN | Bununucs | z Zyiz | —-eos0jUe pus yUoWold
t 1 ! t ! L t
i I ! ' smd | | |
1 | | I SJWN | | I
1 sz i i | vdo | | i
! ge! ! ! osx | { |
| | | oul dvsn | smerz | z twizl
| I I t | | |
| | | i | I !
oz | | i t una | { |
| oz | | | sud | ewok y | z e1z |
i 1 i I | | {
1 1 { 1 | | 1 seinssow uonsi0xd
( i 1 I 1 t | yeou juewe;du pur
LULZ Ut pepnjouy eye0: ' ! i I LLZ se ewes | — Bununuco | ‘ uz | seecons yeeu eyen|eAg|  y-W ‘Ll
t ' i} I 1 I | t
‘siewnse On| ! i i I JJ ‘ounr | I | !
oyewnse On| t i { 1 Td ‘worry so0g | i i !
1 Hi t 1 } | j
I 1 | t I | '
os | os | og | os | os | Ws | | | 1
oo | o9 | o9 | oo | oo | Sdn | I ! 1
i | | | | owsn | i t |
os | og | os |os I os | dvsn | i ! {
oz | oz | of !oz ft ol YNGON | | | |
oz | oz | oz {oz} oa | auWMds | I | |
oz | oz | oz Joz 1 ol uNaD | I ! i
oot! oot! oot! oor! os | yNGs | | t Ayanoe 6unseu|
00z 1 o0z! o0z! oz! ost | SMd | Suinuguos | ry sz Ul spUue.; J0;1V0/y| io
i t i | 1 1 | 1 1
4 I ! | ! smd | | | BujBpeup wos uons|
| | 1 | ' ‘vd3 ‘309 | Buinunuce | e SZL | -onasep yeriqey wercid| ew
! { | i 1 | ! I 1
| i | I 1 i | t son
1 t | { 1 i ' { seD pus jo woy
eunnou| t ! { ! | sag ‘309 ‘SW | ! cf ett | -onneep renqey wesesy! cw
won| GAs] vA! CAS! ZAG! queun| Aoueby| vonsung| Avoug| sequinn | yee, uBlg| AsoBere 9}
Jsquewwos | 000$ #1805 J80, [eo815 poreuneg i eiqieuodsoy| yee! 1 yseal [seven |

(QZL#AWIOUg AJBAOD9Y) ajN, peayse6607

3ING3HIS NOILVLNIW3TIdI


2211.

2212.

2213.

Determine seasonal distribution, abundance, population characteristics
and status in bays, sounds and other important nearshore habitats.

Loggerheads occur throughout the warm waters of the United States
continental shelf, but little is known about specific habitat requirements or
habitat fidelity, seasonal distribution and abundance, movements or
growth. Research is needed to identify areas and times of turtle
abundance, and to answer basic biological questions about the species.
Some important areas that should be studied include, among others: Cedar
Key, Florida Bay, and Indian/Banana River in Florida; Chandeleur Islands
in Louisiana; Chesapeake Bay in Virginia and Maryland; and inshore
waters of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Knowledge of
when and where turtles may occur will allow NMFS to take appropriate
steps to protect various life stages. NMFS, FWS, COE, MMS and other
Federal and State agencies should assist in providing needed information.

Determine navigation mechanisms, migratory pathways, distribution
and movements between nesting seasons.

Nesting migrations and subsequent dispersal of post-nesting females have
been studied principally through tagging on nesting beaches. Movements
and distribution of adult males and juveniles, which may or may not
migrate with the fernales, have been virtually unstudied.

Female turtles are known to return to nest in the same general areas at 2-,
3- and 4-year intervals throughout their reproductive lives. Mechanisms
which allow turtles to navigate over great distances and to exhibit nesting
beach fidelity are poorly understood. Research is needed to determine
how turtles navigate, (olfactory, magnetic, visual) and what factors could
negatively influence this ability. NMFS, COE, MMS, FWS and other
interested State and Federal agencies should fund appropriate research.

Determine present or potential threats to loggerheads along mnigratory
routes and on foraging grounds.

Loggerhead foraging habitat appears to be highly correlated with the
occurrence of crabs and mollusks. Unfortunately, these food items are
most abundant in nearshore waters where commercial and recreational
fishing, dredging, cil and gas activities and vessel traffic occur. Threats
to migrating turtles are virtually unknown, because we have little
information on pathways or mechanisms of migration. Before action can
be taken to eliminate threats to sea turtles, we must know what factors
may impinge on the survival of turtle stocks. Research is needed to
determine when and where turtles may occur, and what activities in these

32


222.

2214.

2215.

areas may negatively impact recovery of the species. NMFS, FWS, COE,
MMS and other State and Federal agencies should fund needed research.

Determine breeding population origins for United States
juvenile/subadult populations,

To effectively manage sea turtle stocks and to determine the efficacy of
nest protection activities, it would be advantageous to have a means of
determining the origin of juvenile and subadult turtles. Such knowledge
could be of major importance if progeny from specific nesting beaches
exhibit different behavior, movements or foraging ranges, than turtles
from other beaches. Such differences could result in high mortality in
some nesting populations, and low mortality rates in other populations.
Appropriate Federal and State agencies should fund this research.

Determine growth rates, sex ratios, age at sexual maturity and
survivorship rates of hatchlings, juveniles and adults.

Knowledge of the age at sexual maturity is necessary if managers are to
know when nest protection programs can be expected to show results if-
successful. Extrapolation of growth rate data using growth equations
currently provides the best although an indirect method to estimate age at
sexual maturity. Growth data can also be used to assess and compare
habitat quality. Direct aging methods using annuli in bones or other body
parts may ultimately provide a better alternative and needs further
research. Data on survivorship rates will be difficult to obtain for most
life stages. To the extent that this information can be collected however,
it will enable managers to more fully evaluate management strategies
utilizing more accurate predictive population models.

Monitor and reduce mortality from commercial and recreational fisheries.

Sea turtles are incidentally taken in several commercial and recreational fisheries.
For example, an estimated 5,000 to 50,000 loggerheads were killed annually
during commercial shrimp fishing activities prior to TED requirements, Other
fisheries known or suspected to incidentally capture turtles include those
employing bottom trawls, off-bottom trawls, purse seines, bottom longlines, hook
and line, gill nets, traps, haul seines, pound nets, beach seines and surface
longlines.

33


Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the explosive removal of
offshore petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(3):33-42.

Kraemer, J.E. 1979. Variation in incubation length of loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta.caretta,
clutches on the Georgia coast. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens.

Labisky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Finger. 1986. Factors affecting reproductive
success of sea turtles on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, 1985. Final Report to
the United States Air Force, United States Fish and Wildl. Serv. Coop., Fish and Wildl.
Research Unit, Agreement No. 14-16-0009-1544, Work Order No. 25, 18p.

Lenarz, M. S., N.B. Frazer, M.S. Ralston, and R.B. Mast. 1981. Seven nests recorded for
loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in one season. Herpetol. Rev. 12:9.

Limpus, C.J. 1979. Notes on growth rates of wild turtles. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 10:3-5.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera,
species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Ed. 10, Tomus 1. L. Salvii,
Stockholm, Sweden, 823p.

Litwin, S.C. 1978. Loggerhead sea turtles of Jekyll Island, Georgia; a report on conservation.
HERP Bull. N.Y. Herpetol. Soc. 14:18-21.

Lohoefener, R.R., W. Hoggard, C.L. Roden, K.D, Mullin, and C.M. Rogers. 1988.
Distribution and relative abundance of surfaced sea turtles in the North-Central Gulf of
Mexico; spring and fall 1987, p. 47-50. In B.A. Schroeder (comp.), Proceedings of the
Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-SEFC-214.

Lund, F. 1973. Marine turtle program, Jupiter Island, Florida, 1973. Unpubl. Report.

Lutcavage, M., and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia.
Copeia 1985:449-456.

Lutz, P.L. in press. Studies on the ingestion of plastic and latex by sea turtles. Proc. Int.
Conf. Mar. Debris, April 1989, Honolulu, HI.

Mager, A., Jr. 1985. Five-year status reviews of sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

Magnuson, J.J., K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Graham, D.W. Owens, C.H. Peterson,

P.C.H. Pritchard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of the sea
turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259p.

48


PART I. RECOVERY

A. Recovery Objectives

The southeastern United States population of the loggerhead can be considered for delisting if,
over a period of 25 years, the following conditions are met:

1.

3.

The adult female population in Florida is increasing and in North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, it has returned to pre-listing nesting levels (NC = 800
nests/season; SC = 10,000 nests/season; GA = 2,000 nests/season). The above
conditions must be met with data from standardized surveys which will continue for at
least 5 years after delisting.

At least 25 percent (560 km) of all available nesting beaches (2240 km) is in public
ownership, distributed over the entire nesting range and encompassing at least 50 percent
of the nesting activity within each State.

All priority one tasks have been successfully implemented.

B. Stepdown Outline and Narrative

1. Protect and manage habitats.

11. Protect and manage nesting habitat.

Coastal development has already destroyed or degraded many miles of nesting habitat in
the Southeast. Although nesting occurs on over 2,250 km of beaches, development
--pressures are so great, cumulative impacts will result in increased degradation or
destruction of nesting habitat and eventually lead to a significant population decline if not

effectively combated.

111. Ensure beach nourishment projects are compatible with maintaining good
quality nesting habitat. (also see 216)

Beach nourishment can improve nesting habitat in areas of severe erosion and is
a preferred alternative to beach armoring. The quality of material should be
similar to that on local natural beaches.

1111. Implement and evaluate tilling as a means of softening compacted
beaches.

Poor quality material deposited on nesting beaches can result in
compaction of sand on nesting beaches. This can cause increased numbers

21


Possardt, E.E. 1991. A conservation program for sea turtles in the southeastern continental
United States. J. Ala. Acad. Sci. 62: 35-48.

Powers, J.E. 1981. An estimate of nesting female loggerhead turtles on the south Atlantic coast
of the United States in 1980. NMFS, Miami, FL 17 p.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1979. Encyclopedia of turtles. T.F.H. Publ., Neptune, N.J. 895p.

Pritchard, P.C.H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. SSAR Contrib. Herpetol.
No. 2.

Provancha, J.A., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. Sea turtle nesting trends at John F. Kennedy Space
Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with factors
influencing nest site selection, p. 33-44. In W.N. Witzell (ed.), Ecology of east Florida sea
turtles. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS No. 53.

Raymond, P.W. 1984a. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south
Brevard County, Florida. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Raymond, P.W. 1984b. Sea turtle hatchling disorientation and artificial beachfront lighting.
Center for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 72p.

Richardson, J.I. 1982. A population model for adult female loggerhead sea turtles Carerta
caretta nesting in Georgia. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. Georgia, Athens.

Richardson, J.I., and T.H. Richardson. 1982. An experimental population model for the
loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta. p. 165-176. In K. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and
conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigration
patterns of loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta nesting on Little Cumberland and
Cumberland Islands, Georgia. Mar. Res. Publ. 33:39-44.

Roithmayr, C., and T. Henwood. 1982. Incidental catch and mortality report. Unpubl. NMFS
Report, 20p.

Ross, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles, p. 189-
195. In K. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.

Ross, J.P., and M.A. Barwani. 1982. Review of sea turtles in the Arabian area, p. 373-383.

In K. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

31


|
tz ul
Pepnpu me05/

eunnoy|

|

{

£6 Ad Aq e19xduioo ‘oreumnse oN |
£6 Ad Aq siodwos ‘oxewinse on|
76 Ad Aq s1e;dwoo ‘eyewipnes on!
I

'

eunnoy|

I

i
!
|
I
|
|
|
!
|
'
I
i
{
!
I
I
'
1
!
I
{
{
t
t
'
|
|
1
1
1
1
i
|
|
|
|
|
|
i}
oc |

|
1
!
|
|
i
|
{
1
!
i
i}
|
'
!
|
!
|
|
1
!
|
!
!
1
|
|
!
|
|
|
|
i
|
1
i
|
|
i
|

of

yNao |
wag |
smd |

1

YNGON |
auwMos |
yNaD |
unas |
smd H
sms |
YNGON |
auwMos |
unao |
wNad |
309 |
YNGON |
SAN |
unas |

‘SAWN
SMa

vad
os)
coq

SMd |

sont |

pus senunco |
teiseoo 73 pus |
‘v9 ‘9S ‘ON |
"dNGON ‘YNGD |
‘GuWMos |
tangs ‘smd |

#1004 OL

Bujnunuos

Bujnunucs

Guynunucs
1004 y

| i
! !
{ |
| |
i !
| |
| i
1 !
| |
| !
| '
1 {
{ !
t I
{ !
1 '
! {
I i
! {
sumed g | e |
1 |
{ !
! i
! |
t |
t !
1 !
' '
t |
' t
I '
I |
I i
| |
! !
I |
I |
' i
t |
l 1

sted g z

elz

rar

154

154

Ovlz

Geiz

vel

Eviz | -yorwy jo wed

youed pus vo}!
jexeanuey odes 104}
sued Buny6y dojenog| tn

i
!
i
i
|
i
{
1
{
H
|
i
1
|
1
|
i
|
i
1
1
i
i
|
|
1
|
i
1
i
|
|
|
!
1
|
|

{

s010N |
smvouwos |

sAsl vaAdl cad! TAs qwueung|
000$ 81805 see, Joely porewnsy 1

Aousby|
eqisuodsoy |

vonsung| Aivoug| sequinn| BBL UBid| Ar0Bere5|
yee] 1___exeu0e9}

neeit |

(OZ#AMIONg AJaA0deY) 9]IN| peaysa6607

JINASHOS NOILVLNAWS Id


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
PREFACE 1.0... eee eee cette teen eee enes i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......0 0. 0c ccc eee eee eee ee nee ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..... 0.0... eee c cece eee ence een eens iii

I, INTRODUCTION .. 1.2... 0. n eens
Taxonomy
Description
Population Distribution and Size
Status eee eee ee een ene e ees
Biological Characteristics ©... eee ee ee een eens
Threats - Nesting Environment
Threats - Marine Environment
Conservation Accomplishments - Nesting Environment ...............008 14
Conservation Accomplishments - Marine Environment...........0000 0005 17

I. RECOVERY

A. Objectives 2... ee ee eee eens 21
B. Stepdown Outline and Narrative for Recovery .. 2... 0.2... eee eee 21
C. Literature Cited... eee ee eee eee 44


229.

2281.

2282.

Centralize tag series records.

A centralized tag series data base is needed to ensure that recaptured
tagged turtles can be promptly reported to persons who initially tagged the
animal. The tag series data base would include listings of all tag series
that have been placed on sea turtles in the wild including the name and
address of the researcher placing these tags on turtles. This would
eliminate problems in determining which researcher is using which tag
series or types of tags, and would preclude unnecessary delays in
reporting of tag returns. NMFS and/or FWS should establish and
maintain this data base.

Centralize turtle tagging records.

In addition to the need for a centralization of tag series records, there are
advantages in developing a centralized turtle tagging data base. Such a
data base would allow all turtle researchers to trace unfamiliar tag series
or types to their source, and also to have immediate access to important
biological information collected at the time of original capture. The major
disadvantage is that this data base would require frequent editing and
updating, and would be costly and somewhat time consuming to maintain.
It would also make it possible for unethical researchers to exploit the work
of others, while providing no guarantees that such contributions would be
acknowledged. NMFS and FWS should determine whether such a data
base can be established and is feasible to maintain.

Ensure proper care of sea turtles in captivity.

Loggerheads are maintained in captivity for rehabilitation, research or educational
display. Proper care will ensure the maximum number of rehabilitated turtles can
be returned to the wild and a minimum number removed from the wild for
research or education purposes.

2291.

Develop standards for care and maintenance including diet, water
quality and tank size.

None of these requirements has been scientifically evaluated to determine
the best possible captive conditions for loggerheads. The FWS and
NMES should support the necessary research to develop these criteria
particularly relating to diet. These criteria should be published and
required for any permit to hold sea turtles in captivity. FWS, NMFS and
appropriate State resource agencies should inspect permitted facilities at
least annually for compliance with permit requirements.

40


225,

2243.

Determine sea turtle distribution and seasonal use of marine habitats
associated with oil and gas development areas.

Oil and gas activities occur over vast areas of the Gulf of Mexico and
southern North Atlantic. Recent technological advances have made it
possible to conduct exploration and development activities in deeper
waters. Despite the continuing offshore movement of the industry, little
effort has been expended in determining distribution, abundance and
seasonality of various life stages of sea turtles in offshore waters. MMS
and NMFS should fund needed research to evaluate the effects of oil and
gas activities on the recovery of sea turtles in offshore waters.

Reduce impacts from entanglement and ingestion of persistent marine debris.

Ingestion of marine debris and entanglement of marine organisms in discarded
nets, monofilament lines and ropes has received considerable attention in recent

years.

Young, pelagic-stage turtles are particularly vulnerable to ingestion of

persistent materials. Additionally, entanglement in nets, ropes, and monofilament
lines may be a source of mortality to all life history stages.

2251.

2252.

Evaluate the extent of entanglement and ingestion of persistent marine
debris.

Limited information on the frequency of entanglement and ingestion of
marine debris by sea turtles is available. Stranding data and necropsies
have provided evidence that some turtle mortality has resulted from
ingestion of debris. Additionally, stranded turtles have been entangled in
lost or discarded netting, monofilament lines and ropes. NMFS, FWS and
EPA should expand efforts to document cases of entanglement and
ingestion, the extent of marine debris in United States waters, sources of
these contaminants, and the impacts of these materials to various life
stages of sea turtle populations.

Evaluate the effects of ingestion of persistent marine debris on health
and viability of sea turtles.

In addition to mortality resulting from ingestion of plastics, hydrocarbons,
or other toxic substances, debilitating non-lethal impacts are possible.
Research is needed to evaluate the long term effects of ingestion of marine
debris, particularly with regard to hatchlings during early life stages.
These turtles are believed to congregate in areas of debris concentration
such as driftlines. NMFS, and EPA should fund this research.

38


£9

| { { i I | | { i t i
| ' I 1 | sm | | | 1 ‘spiooe, Bui66e3| 1
H os og | os! SAWN | Suinunuce | e | zazl epuny ezyesU95| 9-0 ‘yL-t |
I ' I t |

! | | | I smd | | | { ‘spiooes a6 t
{ | | ' | sawn | a0 | | et tel Bey ozyenu9: at
| | | | I ! ! ! | t
! | 1 | ! i | ! sue1em Bares POLUN U! !
i { | | I | { i | -yood eonpes 02 #110; |
i i i i i SAWN i Buyipuve j ei atin 0 |
| I | | ' | | | { | |
1 | { I 1 soroucbe | | { 1 s1soq jerosous09| |
! t ! | | e2snosss ormas | ' 1 i Pus jeuonsesc0s| |
i I | ! t ‘SJWN | el Z 1 tz | wou Arjevou: erenjeng} €-0 ‘vL-I!
| { I | 1 i i l t | |
i { | | | seousbe jeivew | 1 1 1 i |
4 ' I ! | Arouaue ewig | 1 t 1 | {
i t t t 1 Nsn | | | {| suqep euyew ruezs1s.0d} !
i ! ! | i 99sn | | i i eyeujuyje 40 eonpes| -o |
i | | I | vda | Suinunucs | ZL Esez{ 03 sounevow yuowoyduy | wl
| ! i { 1 { ' { | ' |
! | | | 1 ! | | i Annigeia pus] |
t | | | I i i | { Pp sueus| 1
i t I | I vaa | | ' I i
| os | os | os | | SAWN] = S4P0AG | zt zszt “ul
i} I I I { 1 i ! i} |
| | I ! | i 1 | i I
i i I { i vada | i | | Jo vopseBuinuewe; 1
1 oor tl oot! oor! oe | sawN| SBA OL | zt use) 30 1uerxe evenjeng{ Z1-4 ‘L-8 |
' i | t i t I | ! 1
| ! | 1 | | i i I {
I i | | | ! ' | t 1
| ! | ! | | ! I ! |
i { | | 1 ‘SAWN | ! t | I
| i | | | sWW |  seeA G-e | e | evezt CW ‘Ld |
| | | | | ! | 1 1 {
| if | | ' | 4 | I aqueudojencp| |
t i | | ! Axenput | i { ' 886 pus jo 50 Suu} i
I | 1 1 t ‘SAWN | I i} | -uaid Buynp pessouppe| 1
i 1 | It ! SW | SuinunLod | e | zvezd ese syed! ounsua! Z-W ‘P-0 |
worn] GAS] pAdl EAS! ZAdI queun} Aousby| uoneing| Ayuoug| sequinn | yey usig| AsoBere5|
Isuewwos | 000$ 81805 J8eA |Bosly pereWER 4 siqisuodsoy | xe! {xsext 1 1es0uep|

FINGaHDS NOIWLVINIW3AIdNI

(OL#AWONY AsQAODaY) aN, pesysa6607


The most serious threat caused by increased human presence on the beach is the disturbance to
nesting females. Night-time human activity can cause nesting females to abort nesting attempts
at all stages of the behavioral process. Murphy (1985) reported that disturbance can cause
turtles to shift their nesting beaches, delay egg laying, and select poor nesting sites. Heavy
utilization of nesting beaches by humans (pedestrian traffic) may result in lowered hatchling
emergence success rates due to compaction of sand above nests (Mann, 1977), and pedestrian
tracks can interfere with the ability of hatchlings to reach the ocean (Hosier et ai., 1981).
Campfires and the use of flashlights on nesting beaches misorient hatchlings and can deter
nesting females (Mortimer, 1979).

Recreational Beach Equipment: The placement of physical obstacles (e.g., lounge chairs,
cabanas, umbrellas, hobie cats, canoes, small boats and beach cycles) on nesting beaches can
hamper or deter nesting attempts and interfere with incubating egg clutches and the sea approach
of hatchlings. The documentation of false crawls at these obstacles is becoming increasingly
common as more recreational beach equipment is left in place nightly on nesting beaches.
Additionally, there are documented reports of nesting females becoming entrapped under heavy
wooden lounge chairs and cabanas on south Florida nesting beaches (J. Hoover, pers. comm.;
S. Bass, pers. comm.). The placement of recreational beach equipment directly above
incubating egg clutches may hamper hatchlings during emergence and can destroy eggs through
direct invasion of the nest (C. LeBuff, pers. comm.).

Beach Vehicular Driving: The operation of motor vehicles on nesting beaches for recreational
purposes is permitted in northeast Florida (portions of Nassau, St. John's, Flagler and Volusia
Counties), northwest Florida (Walton and Gulf Counties), and North Carolina (Emerald Isle,
Cape Lookout National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Currituck Banks). While
some areas restrict night driving, others permit it. Driving on beaches at night during the
nesting season can disrupt the nesting process and result in aborted nesting attempts. The
negative impact on nesting females in the surf zone may be particularly severe. Vehicle
headlights can disorient or misorient emergent hatchlings, and vehicles can strike and kill
hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean. The tracks or ruts left by vehicles traversing the beach
interfere with the ability of hatchlings to reach the ocean. The extended period of travel
required to negotiate tire tracks and ruts may increase the susceptibility of hatchlings to stress
and depredation during transit to the ocean (Hosier et al., 1981; M. Evans, pers. comm.).
Driving directly above incubating egg clutches can cause sand compaction which may decrease
nest success and directly kill pre-emergent hatchlings (Mann, 1977). In many areas, beach
vehicular driving is the sole cause for nest relocation. Additionally, vehicle traffic on nesting
beaches contributes to erosion, especially during high tides or on narrow beaches where driving
is concentrated on the high beach and foredune.

Exotic Dune and Beach Vegetation: Non-native vegetation has invaded many coastal areas and
often outcompetes native species such as sea oats, railroad vine, sea grape, dune panic grass and
pennywort. The invasion of less stabilizing vegetation can lead to increased erosion and
degradation of suitable nesting habitat. Exotic vegetation may also form impenetrable root mats
which can prevent proper nest cavity excavation, invade and desiccate eggs or trap hatchlings.

8


Murphy, T.M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjected to
disturbance on the beach. Paper presented at Fifth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation, 13-16 March 1985, Waverly, Georgia.

Murphy, T.M., and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting
beaches in the southeast region, United States Final report to NMFS-SEFC, 73p.

Murphy, T.M., and S. Hopkins-Murphy. 1990. Homing of translocated gravid loggerhead
turtles. p. 123-124. In T.H. Richardson, J.1. Richardson, and M. Donnelly (comp.),
Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA
Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFC -278.

Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles. United
States Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(23). United States Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-
86-2(Rev.). 34p.

Nelson, D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerhead turtle nesting digging
with beach sand consistency. (abstract). Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation, February 1987, Wekiva Springs State Park, Florida.

Nelson, D.A., and D.D, Dickerson. 1988, Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting
beaches on the east coast of Florida. Unpubl. Report. United States Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Ogren L., and C. McVea, Jr. 1982. Apparent hibernation by sea turtles in North American
waters, p. 127-132. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

O'Hara, K., S. Indicello, and R. Bierce. 1988. A citizen’s guide to plastics in the ocean:
more than a little problem. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C.

Parker, G.H. 1926. The growth of turtles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 12:422-424.

Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings, Eretmochelys imbricata,
by stadium lights. Copeia 1976:824.

Pilkey, O.H., Jr., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W.J. Neal, and
B.L. Gruver. 1984. Living with the east Florida shore. Duke University Press, Durham,
NC. 259p.

Plotkin, P., and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris by sea
turtles stranded along the south Texas coast, p. 79-82. In B.A. Schroeder (comp.),
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214.

50


GENERAL CATEGORIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES
Information Gathering - I or R (research)

Population status
Habitat status

Habitat requirements
Management techniques
Taxonomic studies
Demographic studies
Propagation

Migration

Predation

|. Competition

. Disease

. Environmental contaminant
. Reintroduction

. Other information

FES ES Pern MAMAN

Management - M

Propagation

Reintroduction

Habitat maintenance and manipulation
Predator and competitor control
Depredation control

Disease control

Other management

NAY ENE

Acquisition - A

1. Lease

2. Easement

3. Management agreement
4. Exchange

5. Withdrawal

6. Fee title

7. Other

Other - O
. Information and education
. Law enforcement

1

2.

3. Regulations

4. Administration

56


Threats - Marine Environment

Oil and Gas Exploration, Development and Transportation: Experimental and field results
reported by Vargo et al. (1986) indicate that marine turtles would be at substantial risk if they
encountered an oil spill or large amounts of tar in the environment, Physiological experiments
indicate that the respiration, skin, some aspects of blood chemistry and composition, and salt
gland function of marine turtles are significantly affected (Vargo ef al., 1986). Spills in the
vicinity of nesting beaches are of special concern and could place nesting adults, incubating egg
clutches (Fritts and McGehee, 1989) and hatchlings at significant risk. Exploration and oil
development on live bottom areas may disrupt foraging grounds by smothering benthic organisms
with sediments and drilling muds (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983). Oil and tar are also
released into the marine environment during pumping of bilges on large vessels. In a review
of available information on debris ingestion, Balazs (1985) reported that tar balls were the
second most prevalent type of abiotic debris ingested by marine turtles.

Dredging: The effects of dredging are evidenced through direct destruction or degradation of
habitat and incidental take of marine turtles. Channelization of inshore and nearshore habitat
and the disposal of dredged material in the marine environment can destroy or disrupt resting
or foraging grounds (including grass beds and coral reefs) and may affect nesting distribution
through the alteration of physical features in the marine environment (Hopkins and Murphy,
1980). Hopper dredges are responsible for incidental take and mortality of marine turtles during
dredging operations. During a three month period in 1980 in the Port Canaveral, Florida,
channel, dredging operations were responsible for the mortality of at least 71 sea turtles
(Magnuson et al., 1990). These high levels of incidental take have not generally been
documented during dredging operations in subsequent years. Maintenance dredging of the Kings
Bay, Georgia, channel during 1987 to 1988 resulted in the mortality of at least 18 sea turtles
during a 1 year period (Magnuson et al., 1990). During the dredging of Brunswick harbor and
the entrance channel in 1991 at least 20 sea turtles were killed during a three month period

(I. Henwood, pers. comm.). Other types of dredges (clamshell and pipeline) have not been
implicated in incidental take.

Marina and Dock Development: The development of marinas and private or commercial docks
in inshore waters can negatively impact turtles through destruction or degradation of foraging
habitat. Additionally, this type of development leads to increased boat and vessel traffic which
may result in higher propeller and collision related mortality. Fueling facilities at marinas can
result in the discharge of oil and gas into sensitive estuarine habitat.

Pollution: The effects of pollutants resulting from industrial, agricultural or residential sources
are difficult to evaluate. Pesticides, heavy metals and PCB’s have been detected in turtles
(including eggs), but levels which result in adverse effects have not been quantified (Nelson,
1988).

10


Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be Tequired to recover and/or
Protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service, and sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors,
State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon
appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily
Tepresent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other
than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service involved in the
plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director and
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to
modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of
recovery tasks.

Literature citations should read as follows:

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery Plan
for U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington,
D.C.

Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane

Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

(301) 492-6403 or

1-800-582-3421

The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.


218.

219.

Determine natural hatchling sex ratios.

It is well documented that incubation temperature determines hatchling sex. Sex
ratios of hatchlings on natural beaches throughout the nesting range should be
determined over several years in order to evaluate nest relocation programs which
could be altering natural sex ratios. FWS, FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD and
NCDNR should support necessary research and evaluate all nest relocation
projects to ensure natural sex ratios are not altered. Research should include
establishment of temperature transects on representative beaches throughout the
Southeast. A standardized protocol for temperature monitoring should be
developed by FWS and State resource agencies to accomplish this.

Define geographical boundaries of breeding aggregations.

It is not known whether loggerhead nesting populations along the southeastern
United States coast and Gulf of Mexico represent separate breeding aggregations
or are one large breeding population. This has direct management implications.
If nesting populations are segregated even loosely into demes, smaller populations
in GA, SC, and NC and west coast Florida would be even more vulnerable to
extirpation. FWS should support research to define breeding populations within
and outside the United States. As a management approach and until otherwise
determined, it should be assumed that nesting populations are segregated.

22. Protect and manage populations in the marine environment.

Management and protection of sea turtles in the marine environment is a difficult task.
The foremost problem in management and conservation of sea turtles is the lack of basic
biological information. To adequately protect and enhance survival of sea turtles, we
must know where they occur, in what numbers, at what times; and what factors
contribute to mortality. As sources of mortality are identified, steps can be taken to
reduce or eliminate their impacts on populations.

221.

Determine loggerhead distribution, abundance and status in the marine
environment.

In efforts to recover threatened or endangered species, it is necessary to ensure
the survival of all life stages. In the case of sea turtles which exhibit great
longevity, it is important to protect all age classes so that a sufficient number of
individuals survive to reach sexual maturity. To effectively enhance survival, the
most critical information needed is when, where and in what abundance, turtles
may occur over the various stages of their life cycles.

31


habitat use, surface time and daily movements (Byles, 1988). Netting studies in the Indian
River, Florida, are providing information on habitat use by juvenile loggerheads (L. Ehrhart,
pers. comm.). Distribution, size and species composition are being determined in the inshore
waters of North Carolina by means of aerial survey, sightings from ferry boats and the public,
and cooperating pound net fishermen (Epperly and Veishlow, 1989).

Because of turbid waters near shore, assessing turtle stocks by pelagic aerial survey is
probably not feasible. Information on the distribution of sea turtles over the continental shelf
has until recently been from casual observations and most were anecdotal. Since 1978, four
pelagic aerial surveys in the southeast region have been completed during which sea turtles were
counted (Fritts er al., 1983; Thompson and Shoop, 1984; Lohoefener et al., 1988; SCWMRD,
unpubl. rept.). The most recent aerial survey conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico was
funded by MMS to assess turtle/platform associations (Lohoefener et al., 1988). These flights
have provided information on the geographic and seasonal distribution of sea turtles.

Information from vessels is largely opportunistic. It was through incidental capture that the
winter hibernaculum for sea turtles in the Canaveral ship channel was discovered (Ogren and
McVea, 1982). The NMFS is also conducting interviews and netting surveys in the Gulf of
Mexico (L. Ogren, pers. comm.). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) and rates of mortality provide
a reasonable estimate of the number of captures and mortality when used with fishing effort
Statistics. These data provide information on seasonal abundance and distribution over wide
geographic areas (Henwood and Stuntz, 1987).

A regional data collection effort was begun in 1980 to monitor mortality. This voluntary
stranding network from Maine to Texas is coordinated by the NMFS and serves to document
the geographic and seasonal distribution of sea turtle mortality (Schroeder, 1987). Since 1987,
four index zones have been systematically surveyed. It is clear that strandings represent an
absolute minimum mortality. However, they can be used as an annual index to mortality and
are an indication of the size distribution of turtles being killed. They can also provide valuable
biological information on food habits, reproductive condition and sex ratios.

Accomplishments - Information and Education

Public support for sea turtle conservation effort is essential for the long-term success of
conservation programs. This is particularly true when conservation measures are controversial
or expensive. To heighten public awareness and understanding of sea turtle conservation issues
a number of educational activities and efforts are underway. For example, personnel conducting
turtle projects often advise tourists on what they can do to minimize disturbance to nesting
turtles, protect nests and rescue misoriented hatchlings. Likewise, State and Federal parks which
conduct public awareness sea turtle interpretive walks provide information to visitors. Florida
DNR has developed guidelines for organized sea turtle interpretive walks in order to minimize
any disturbance to nesting turtles while still allowing them to be viewed by the public. Many
beaches have been posted with signs informing people of the laws protecting sea turtles and
providing either a local or a hotline number to report violations.

19


RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. POPULATION OF LOGGERHEAD TURTLE

(Caretta caretta)

Prepared by
The Loggerhead/Green Turtle Recovery Team

for

Southeast Region

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Atlanta, Georgia

and
National Marine Fisheries Service

Washington, D.C.

June 1993
«
Approved: oo
gional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servite
Date: October 31, 1991

amoen Lp LA, Ae

Assistant Administrator for Fisferies, Natioffi/Marine Fisheries Service

Date: December 26, 1991



36. Post information signs at public access points on important nesting beaches.

Public access points to important nesting beaches provide excellent opportunities
to inform the public of necessary precautions for compatible public use on the
nesting beach and to develop public support through informational and educational
signs. NCDNR, SCWMRD, GDNR, FDNR, FWS, NPS and other appropriate
organizations should post such educational and informational signs on important
nesting beaches as appropriate.

4. International cooperation.

41. Develop international agreements to ensure protection of life stages which occur in
foreign waters.

There is compelling evidence that post-hatchling loggerheads from United States nesting
beaches spend several years as juveniles in a transatlantic developmental stage. In the
eastern Atlantic (Madeira, Azores and Canary Islands) small juveniles (<40 cm) are
exploited for curios and food. Larger juveniles are common throughout the Bahamas
where exploitation for food also is common. Populations in coastal waters of Cuba and
Hispaniola likely originate from United States populations. Protecting loggerheads on
United States nesting beaches and in United States waters therefore is not sufficient alone
to ensure the continued existence of loggerheads. The NMFS and FWS should develop
cooperative international agreements and programs with the governments of the Bahamas,
Portugal, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Spain and other countries where loggerheads
originating from United States nesting populations occur.

43


125.

Prevent destruction of habitat from dredging activities.

Channel dredging projects may have greater impacts on habitat than the obvious
mechanical destruction of the channel bottom. Channelization can alter natural
current patterns, disrupt sediment transport, and suspended materials from
dredging may severely damage adjacent corals and seagrasses. Additionally,
disposal of dredged materials in offshore disposal sites usually smothers existing
flora and fauna. The COE and EPA should continue to carefully consider the
environmental consequences before permitting any new channel dredging projects
or designating new offshore disposal sites.

2. Protect and manage population.

21. Protect and manage populations on nesting beaches.

Predators, poaching, tidal inundation, artificial lighting and human activities on nesting
beaches diminish reproductive success. Monitoring of nesting activities is necessary to
implement and evaluate appropriate nest protection measures and determine trends in the
nesting population.

211,

212.

Monitor trends in nesting activity by means of standardized surveys.

Nesting surveys are undertaken on the majority of nesting beaches. However, in
the past, beach coverage from year to year varied, as did the frequency of
surveys, experience and training of surveyors and data reporting. Consequently,
no regionwide determination of nesting population trends has been possible with
any degree of certainty.

FWS, FDNR, GDNR, SCWMRD, and NCDNR should continue to refine
standardized nest survey criteria, identify additional index survey beaches to be
monitored, continue to conduct training workshops for surveyors, and implement
or continue appropriate aerial or ground surveys. This is essential to gather a
long-term data base on nesting activities from North Carolina to Florida which
can be used as an index of nesting population trends throughout the nesting range
of the species.

Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest protection measures.

Nesting and hatching success on beaches occurring on State or Federal lands and
all other important local or regional nesting beaches should be evaluated.
Appropriate nest protection measures should be implemented by FWS, FDNR,
GDNR, SCWMRD, NCDNR or appropriate local governments or organizations
to ensure greater than 60 percent hatch rate, Until recovery is ensured, however,
projects on all Federal and State lands and key nesting beaches such as

27


223.

Monitor and reduce mortality from dredging activities.

The COE is congressionally mandated to maintain United States navigational
channels. To ensure that authorized channel depths are sustained, periodic
dredging is required. Sorne types of dredges, particularly the hopper dredge,
have been shown to take sea turtles, and on a cumulative basis, this take is
believed to be significant.

2231.

2232.

2233.

Monitor turtle mortality on dredges.

Turtle mortality can be documented by screening the inflows/outflows on
a hopper dredge, by observation aboard a clamshell dredge, or by
observing the discharge of a pipeline dredge. Presently, NMFS believes
that few, if any, turtles are impacted by clamshell or pipeline dredges, but
that the hopper dredge is a major problem. NMFS should require
observer coverage and appropriate screening on all hopper dredge
operations to document take and associated mortality.

Evaluate modifications of dredge dragheads or devices to reduce turtle
captures, and incorporate effective modifications or devices into future
dredging operations.

Recent COE and NMFS experiments and photography of operating hopper
dredges indicate that suction is greatest directly beneath the draghead.
This suggests that turtles taken by hopper dredges must be resting on the
bottom in the path of the dredge, and that mortality could be eliminated
if turtles could be moved 60 to 90 cm up or to either side. COE and
NMFS gear specialists are attempting to design a “turtle deflector device"
which will push turtles out of the dredge path. This research should be
continued until an effective device is perfected.

Determine seasonality and abundance of sea turtles at dredging
localities, and ensure that dredging is restricted to time periods with
the least potential for turtle mortality.

Channels requiring maintenance dredging and in which turtles are
suspected to reside should be surveyed by the COE or Navy prior to
dredging to determine when, where and how rnany turtles are present. To
minimize the impacts to sea turtles, all dredging activities should be
conducted during times of lowest turtle densities.

36


112.

1112.

1113.

1114.

of false crawls and aberrant nests, increased digging times for nesting
females and, in some cases, broken eggs from clutches deposited in too
shallow an egg chamber. Where beach compaction exceeds local natural
conditions tilling to a depth of 77 to 92 cm should be used to soften
beaches. The effectiveness of tilling in softening beaches should also be
fully evaluated by the COE to determine the persistence of beach
softening, frequency of tilling required, and the best mechanical method
for beach softening.

Evaluate the relationship of sand characteristics (including aragonite)
and hatch success, hatchling fitness and sex ratios, and nesting
behavior.

Gas diffusion could be affected by sand grain shape, size and compaction
and alter hatch success. Sand color and moisture influence temperature
and can affect hatchling sex determination. The effect of importing non-
native materials such as aragonite to United States beaches for beach
nourishment adds additional unknowns which could conceivably affect
hatchlings and should be discouraged until fully evaluated.

Reestablish dunes and native vegetation.

Dune restoration and revegetation with native plants should be a required
component of all renourishment projects. This will enhance beach
stability and nesting habitat and require less frequent renourishment
activities.

Evaluate sand transfer systems as alternative to beach nourishment.

Sand transfer systems can diminish the necessity for frequent beach
renourishment and thereby reduce disruption of nesting activities and
eliminate sand compaction, The construction and operation of these
systems must be carefully evaluated by the COE to ensure important
nearshore habitats are not degraded or sea turtles injured or destroyed.

Prevent degradation of nesting habitat from seawalls, revetments, sand bags,
sand fences or other erosion control measures.

Seawalls, revetments, and sand bags have already destroyed or degraded many
miles of nesting habitat on the southeast Atlantic coast. Beach armoring still
occurs, however, either illegally or through devices such as sandbags which are
still allowed. The filling and burial of long plastic bags to protect coastal
property is a common practice in Florida and has occurred in other States. These

22


spaced wooden or plastic slats or plastic fabric, improperly placed drift fences can impede
nesting attempts and/or trap emergent hatchlings and nesting females.

Beach Nourishment: Beach nourishment consists of pumping, trucking or scraping sand onto
the beach to rebuild what has been lost to erosion. Beach nourishment can impact turtles
through direct burial of nests and by disturbance to nesting turtles if conducted during the
nesting season. Sand sources may be dissimilar from native beach sediments and can affect nest
site selection, digging behavior, incubation temperature (and hence sex ratios), gas exchange
parameters within incubating nests, hydric environment of the nest, hatching success and
hatchling emergence success (Mann, 1977; Ackerman, 1980; Mortimer, 1982; Raymond,
1984a). Beach nourishment can result in severe compaction or concretion of the beach.
Trucking of sand onto project beaches may increase the level of compaction.

Significant reductions in nesting success have been documented on severely compacted
nourished beaches (Raymond, 1984a). Nelson and Dickerson (1988) evaluated compaction levels
at ten renourished east coast Florida beaches and concluded that 50 percent were hard enough
to inhibit nest digging, 30 percent were questionable as to whether their hardness affected nest
digging and 20 percent were probably not hard enough to affect nest digging. They further
concluded that, in general, beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are harder than natural
beaches, and, while some may soften over time through erosion and accretion of sand, others
may remain hard for 10 years or more. Nourished beaches often result in severe escarpments
along the mid-beach and can hamper or prevent access to nesting sites. Nourishment projects
result in heavy machinery, pipelines, increased human activity and artificial lighting on the
project beach. These activities are normally conducted on a 24-hour basis and can adversely
affect nesting and hatching activities. Pipelines and heavy machinery can create barriers to
nesting females emerging from the surf and crawling up the beach, causing a higher incidence
of false crawls (non-nesting emergences). Increased human activity on the project beach at night
may cause further disturbance to nesting females. Artificial lights along the project beach and
in the nearshore area of the borrow site may deter nesting females and disorient or misorient
emergent hatchlings from adjacent non-project beaches.

Beach nourishment projects require continual maintenance (subsequent nourishment) as
beaches erode and hence their negative impacts to turtles are repeated on a regular basis. Beach
nourishment projects conducted during the nesting season can result in the loss of some nests
which may be inadvertently missed or misidentified as false crawls during daily patrols
conducted to identify and relocate nests deposited on the project beach (Lund, 1973; R. Wolf,
pers. comm.). Nourishment of highly eroded beaches (especially those with a complete absence
of dry beach) can be beneficial to nesting turtles if conducted properly. Careful consideration
and advance planning and coordination must be carried out to ensure timing, methodology and
sand sources are compatible with nesting and hatching requirements.

Artificial Lighting: Extensive research has demonstrated that the principal component of the

sea finding behavior of emergent hatchlings is a visual response to light (Daniel and Smith,
1947; Hendrickson, 1958; Carr and Ogren, 1960; Ehrenfeld and Carr, 1967; Dickerson and

6


8s

I | | I | { ! | ! | |
i ' ' | { sepuebe | ' i | i |
| [ | i ' sounoses | ! i | 4808 soveysy wos; uo0H| |
suanoul ! H | | weiseoo ‘sawn | Bumunuos | € | ett | -pesBep wagey ‘wore co‘ew!
| ' { | | { ! i
i i i i i sejousde j i I 1 i I
{ 1 | i | eosnose: jays809 | I 1 1 qeyqey eunew ruevodu!! |
I ! ! | | ‘WZ ‘smd '309 | 1 ' i 1
‘sunnoy| 1 ! ! ! ‘waa ‘sgn | Buynunuos | © of oi | pus vonepesBep wuessig] €-0 ‘e-w |
| ! t i i t I | i i {
| I i i | MGW ‘quwmos | | ! ' ' i
serge uonsindod| ' I I 1 OMWA ‘amar | | i | | I
‘nim depen yostesos| | | { 1 *uNav ‘mal | 1 ! I i |
Jo esneoeq 1177 2epun] i { 1 | ‘uNG® ‘ENON | 1 I 1 aeugey GujBes0; cuvew] |
PeyRvep! ee spun] | | | H “dNQJ 'S4WN | eed St-01 | ZY ee | qweyoduiy Anuepi| C-8 ‘2-8 H
| t |
| | t i ! { | i | seyoreg Bun |
t | I | | | | | ' jusyodwt seo |
toot | i i ‘Sdn | i | | 1d ued e181 si9ny 1
| orl orf orf op s1 und | | | | ‘Ta 'HMN Punog eqoH 26| |
| slog! sig sl SMa | Suinunuoe | € | Sbb | vonmetion onoxe erowey| ew!
| | ! I i | | ' { | {
i i i i i auWMas | | ' I soyoueg! |
| | ' i | wNao | | l ! Supseu yueodu)| {
eupnoy! ! I | t uNaa | why H z | evi I seyno jo sree snnrena cw \
I ! 1 t | I
16-1 Aq suopspuewiwooes| | | ! | | | 1 t ued uonosjoxd) |
fueyd uopoejosd uy] I 1 ! i i 1 1 l |
Peynuep; 31 vonjeinbow yim | ' | 1 1 smd | | 4 ' |
Pereposse oq [11M 93805/ | | | i uNad | sawed Z | zt teed |
! | | I { | | | | |
i ! ! ! | 1 ! | i |
WO = voniemboe jo] WS | WoL! WoL! WOL wool unas | ! | 1 pur eusnoqen usomieq| 9-v ‘e-v |
ss09 poxewnse wor] WoL] WOLI WoL] WSL wzil smd | eed | t | bette} seyseeq Bunseu eunboy| z-v ‘e-W |
! | i ! ' { { | i I
seypeeg poynuep)| | | | 1 sma | t | i uo}soue eseno8| t
Aum jo vogenpeas soe peujuusrep| i | I 1 ‘YNGON ‘99s | 1 | i ‘WIM seyoeeg Bunseu |
#4 04 83800 VoRsBW tounnoy| | | l | ‘yNGS ‘NGS | BununUoD | et Zete |  wevoduy seyyo Aynuep)| ew
son] SAdi  vAgl eAdT ZAI queuing} Aousdy vopeung) Avoug| sequinn | 48eL UBig| As0BereD|
squewwos | 000% si805 see, jeouly posewnsy | siqisuodsoy| eel (hla? [| feseu0e5|

(DL#AMIONg AJaA0D0Y) 9]IN| peaysa6607
FING3HIS NOILVLNIW3AIdAI


LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman, R.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs.
Amer. Zool. 20:575-583.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion, p.
387-429. In R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the
Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS/SWFC-54.

Bell, R., and J. I. Richardson. 1978. An analysis of tag recoveries from loggerhead sea turtles
(Caretta caretta) nesting on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia. Florida Mar. Res. Publ.
33:20-24.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach,
Florida, I. Size, growth and reproductive biology. Biol. Conserv. 26:65-77.

Brongersma, L.D. 1961. Notes upon some sea turtles. Zool. Verh. (Leiden) No. 52:1-45.
Brongersma, L.D. 1972. European Atlantic turtles. Zool. Verh. (Leiden) No. 121.

Byles, R.A. 1988. The behavior and ecology of sea turtles Caretta caretta and Lepidochelys
kempi, in Chesapeake Bay. PhD Dissertation. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.

Caldwell, D.K. 1959. The loggerhead turtles of Cape Romain, South Carolina. (abridged and
annotated manuscript of W.P. Baldwin, Jr. and J.P. Loftin, Jr.). Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol.
Sci. 4:319-348.

Caldwell, D.K., F.H. Berry, A. Carr, and R.A. Ragotzkie. 1959a. Multiple and group nesting
by the Atlantic loggerhead turtle. Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol. Sci. 4:309-318.

Caldwell, D.K., A. Carr, and L.H. Ogren. 1959b. Nesting and migration of the Atlantic
loggerhead turtle. Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol. Sci. 4:295-308.

Carr, A.F., Jr., 1952. Handbook of Turtles. The turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja
California. Comell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

Carr, A.F., Jr., 1986a. Rips, FADS and little loggerheads. Bioscience 36:92-100.

Carr, A.F., Jr., 1986b. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-190, 36p.

Carr, A.F., Jr., 1987. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival
outlook of sea turtles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):352-356.

44


Ehrenfeld, D.W., and A. Carr. 1967. The role of vision in the sea-finding orientation of the
green turtle Chelonia mydas. Anim. Behav. 15:25-36.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. A survey of nesting by the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, and loggerhead
turtle, Caretta caretta, in south Brevard County, Florida. Unpub!. Report to World Wildl.
Fund - U.S., Washington, DC, 49p.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. A status review of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in the Western
Atlantic. p. 122-139. In L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina,
H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle
Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-226.

Epperly, S.P., and A. Veishlow. 1989. Sea turtle species composition and distribution in the
inshore waters of North Carolina. Unpubl. Report to United States Fish and Wild!. Serv. and
Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, NMFS, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, NC, 49p.

Emest, R.G., R. Erick, and C.J. Bove. 1987. Development of a comprehensive sea turtle
protection ordinance for St. Lucie County, Florida. (Abstract). Seventh Annual Workshop
on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. February 1987, Wekiva Springs State Park,
Florida.

Emest, R.G., R.E. Martin, N. William-Walls, and J.R. Wilcox. 1989. Population dynamics
of sea turtles utilizing shallow coastal waters off Hutchinson Island, Florida, p. 57-59. In
S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (comp.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual
Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232.

Frazer, N.B. 1983. Survivorship of adult female loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta,
nesting on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA. Herpetologica 39:436-447.

Frazer, N.B., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas,
and loggerhead, Caretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985:73-79.

Frazier, J. 1984. Las tortugas marinas en el Oceano Atlantico Sur Occidental. Assoc.
Herpetol. Argentina 2:2-21.

Frazier, J., and S. Salas. 1982. Tortugas marinas en Chile. Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Chile
39:63-73.

Fritts, T.H., and W. Hoffman. 1982. Diurnal nesting of marine turtles in southern Brevard
County, Florida. J. Herpetol. 16:84-86.

Fritts, T.H., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee.

1983. Turtles, birds and mammals in the northern Gulf of Mexico and nearby waters. United
States Fish Wild}. Serv., FWS/OBS 82/65, 455p.

46


The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) is particularly detrimental. Dense stands of this
species have taken over many coastal strand areas throughout central and south Florida.
Australian pines cause excessive shading of the beach which would not otherwise occur. Studies
in Florida suggest that nests laid in shaded areas are subjected to lower incubation temperatures
which may alter the natural hatchling sex ratio (Marcus and Maley, 1987; Schmelz and Mezich,
1988). Fallen Australian pines limit access to suitable nest sites and can entrap nesting females.
Davis and Whiting (1977) reported that nesting activity declined in Everglades National Park
where dense stands of Australian pine took over native beach berm vegetation on a remote
nesting beach. Conversely, along highly developed beaches, nesting may be concentrated in
areas where dense stands of Australian pines create a barrier to intense beachfront and beach
vicinity lighting (S. Bass, pers. comm.).

Nesting Depredation: A variety of natural and introduced predators such as raccoons, feral
hogs, foxes, ghost crabs and ants prey on incubating eggs and hatchling sea turtles. The
Principal predator is the raccoon (Procyon lotor). Raccoons are particularly destructive and may
take up to 96 percent of all nests deposited on a beach (Davis and Whiting, 1977; Hopkins and
Murphy, 1980; Stancyk er al., 1980; Talbert et al., 1980; Schroeder, 1981; Labisky er al.,
1986). Prior to hog control efforts, up to 45 percent of all nests deposited at the Canaveral Air
Force Station, Florida, were depredated by feral hogs (FDNR, unpubl. data). In Georgia, on
Ossabaw and St. Catherine’s Island, an estimated 90 percent of all nests were lost to feral hogs
prior to the implementation of predator control programs (GDNR, unpubl. data). In addition to
the destruction of eggs, certain predators may take considerable numbers of hatchlings just prior
to or upon emergence from the sand.

Nest Loss to Abiotic Factors: Nest loss due to erosion or inundation and accretion of sand
above incubating nests appear to be the principal abiotic factors which may negatively affect
incubating egg clutches. While these factors are often widely perceived as contributing
significantly to nest mortality or lowered hatching success, few quantitative studies have been
conducted (Mortimer, 1989). Studies on a relatively undisturbed nesting beach by Witherington
(1986) indicated that excepting a late season severe storm event, erosion and inundation played
a relatively minor role in destruction of incubating nests. Inundation of nests and accretion of
sand above incubating nests as a result of the late season storm played a major role in destroying
nests from which hatchlings had not yet emerged. Severe storm events (e.g., tropical storms
and hurricanes) may result in significant nest loss, but these events are typically aperiodic rather
than annual occurrences. In the southeastern United States, severe storm events are generally
experienced after the peak of the hatching season and hence would not be expected to affect the
majority of incubating nests. Erosion and inundation of nests are exacerbated through coastal
development and shoreline engineering. These threats are discussed above under beach
armoring.

Poaching: In the United States, killing of nesting female loggerheads is infrequent. However,
in a number of areas, egg poaching and clandestine markets for eggs are not uncommon.
During the period 1983 to 1989 the Florida Marine Patrol made 29 arrests for illegal possession
of turtle eggs (figure not apportioned by species).